Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

British Virgin Islands (Schools and Roads)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid is proposed for schools and roads in the British Virgin Islands.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. A. E. Oram): It is expected that about half of the British Virgin Islands 1969–70 development aid allocation of £225,000 will be spent on roads and about £90,000 on social services, principally schools.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that reply. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is the primary schools which are so overcrowded and in respect of which a greater effort is needed than has been made hitherto. Can he say whether there will be a C. D. and W. grant in respect of the flood damage done to the roads in Virgin Gorda?

Mr. Oram: I recognise the hon Gentleman's point about primary schools. The present primary schools are insufficiently housed. The figures which I gave take into account the need for dealing with the damage to the roads.

Anguilla (Aid)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement about aid for Anguilla.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much development aid he has now decided will be granted to Anguilla in the financial

year 1969–70; and on what projects it will be spent.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): A development programme estimated to cost about £50,000 in the current financial year has been drawn up in consultation between Her Majesty's Commissioner, the British Development Division in the Caribbean, and the Royal Engineers. The latter have recently submitted a detailed report on projects with which they will be able to assist. The main priorities are the erection of a new school and the improvement of roads. Work on both has already begun.

Mr. Marten: Will the aid go direct to Anguilla and not via St. Kitts? If so, for how long will this system of direct aid go to Anguilla, cutting out St. Kitts, last?

Mr. Prentice: The aid will be dispersed through the arrangements which I have mentioned; in other words, it will be directed to Anguilla. I cannot say for how long this will last. It will depend on constitutional developments in the area.

Montserrat (Deep-water Harbour)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he proposes to assist the construction of a deep-water harbour in Montserrat.

Mr. Oram: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to his similar Question on 5th May.
My Ministry has already given a good deal of assistance with feasibility studies. Our Development Division in the Caribbean is ready to discuss the matter further with the Government of Montserrat, including in particular the problems of financing the project.—[Vol. 783, c. 2.]

Mr. Turton: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why there has been all this delay? Ten months ago the British Development Commission produced a report on the project and said that it would be economically viable and urgently necessary as the landing, storage and delivery charges in Montserrat are twice as high as they are in Barbados.

Mr. Oram: I recognise that action in this matter since the production of the report has not been as swift as one might have wished. But there has been a gap in personnel there. In particular, there has not been a Substantive Financial Secretary. An appointment has now been made, so one can hope for quicker progress.

Former Public Servants (Bifran Relief Agencies)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Overseas Development why financial sanctions, such as the withholding of pensions, lump sums compensation and other retiring benefits, have been imposed by Her Majesty's Government on British members of the former Eastern Nigeria public service who have returned to Biafra to take up temporary humanitarian assignments with the relief agencies at the agencies request.

Mr. Oram: We have not withheld any payments due to any British member of the former Eastern Nigeria public service who has retired from that service or is at present being treated as if he had retired from it.

Mr. Allaun: But were not such retirement benefits unconditionally guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government under a special agreement with the former Eastern Nigerian Government?

Mr. Oram: There were guarantees, but retirement benefits are due only on retirement. As my Answer made clear, no one who has retired is not receiving what is due to him.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is perfectly in order, is it not, for British subjects, whether former public servants or not, to do relief work in Biafra?

Mr. Oram: Indeed.

Kenya (Farm Purchase Scheme)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the continuation of the compassionate farm purchase scheme for British subjects in Kenya.

Mr. Oram: The scheme remains in being up to March, 1970. I am not at present in a position to make any statement about its continuance thereafter.

Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Conservative Government allocated over £1 million to this scheme? What sum is allocated today? The hon. Gentleman says that the scheme is still in existence. What are the criteria to qualify because most people in Kenya think that the scheme is dead?

Mr. Oram: In an earlier Answer to the hon. Gentleman, I indicated that the scheme has now very largely fulfilled its original purpose and that discussions are going on about what the position shall be after March, 1970. We must await the outcome of those discussions.

Mr. Whitaker: Do not the Government think that we have a moral responsibility to compensate British citizens of Asian origin whose businesses in Kenya have been appropriated?

Mr. Oram: That is clearly another question.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman have any information through the British High Commission about how many cases of compassionate farm purchase are still outstanding?

Mr. Oram: Of the original 18, six accepted the offers made to them, and over the last two years no new cases have come forward.

Malta (Aid)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on aid to Malta.

Mr. Prentice: Under the Financial Agreement of 1964, the arrangements for the payment of our aid to Malta during the last five years of the life of the Agreement, i.e. after 31st March, 1969, have to be discussed between the two Governments. Discussions have taken place but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Wall: If it is true that Her Majesty's Government have made a threat to withdraw financial aid from Malta, this is very prejudicial to Anglo-Maltese relations. Can the Minister explain exactly what has happened?

Mr. Prentice: It is not true that we have made any threat of that kind. We


have had discussions but, as I have said, I am not yet in a position to make a statement. I must regard the content of the discussions as confidential at this stage.

India (Loans)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development (1) what is the policy of the Government in regard to the giving of grants in place of loans to India and to other territories facing difficulties in meeting interest and repayment obligations;
(2) what is now the general policy of the Government in regard to interest-free loans, and to the waiving of interest on loans previously made.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the policy of the Government with regard to offering long-term periods of repayment of loans to India and other developing countries comparable with the 50-year terms offered by the International Development Association.

Mr. Prentice: The burden of indebtedness is one element that we take into account. In the case of India, for example, we provide interest-free loans with a maturity of 25 years and a seven-year grace period for all purposes, including debt relief. It is not our general policy to provide debt relief by waiving interest due on past lending, or otherwise varying the terms of previous loans, nor by giving grants or loans on softer terms than those now applicable to India—which are among the most generous terms given by any donor country.

Mr. Davidson: In thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he would agree that the real return which we get on this sort of aid is an increase in trade in the sale of capital equipment in due course and that, therefore, we should aim at being lenient in our terms in all respects?

Mr. Prentice: We have given a lead in being lenient in our terms. We have done this because this is the kind of aid which is most useful to India. But it also has indirect benefits to this country of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member.

St. Kitts and Nevis

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much development aid will be granted to St. Kitts for the financial year 1969–70; and how much of this will be spent in Nevis.

Mr. Prentice: The Colonial Development and Welfare allocation for 1969–70 is £260,000, but it has been agreed, at the request of the St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla Government, that this, with the bulk of the similar allocation for 1968–69 which has been carried forward, should be reserved for application towards improvements to the airfield at Golden Rock. The Premier has asked me to provide additional aid to be devoted to Nevis. This is being discussed with him in London now, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman look sympathetically at the need for an extension of the airfield at St. Kitts to take international jet aircraft, as in Antigua, to develop the full tourist potential of the island? Will he also view sympathetically the needs of Nevis for roads and electricity services for the infrastructure for tourism, which is probably the best hope for that island?

Mr. Prentice: All the aspects which the hon. Member has mentioned are being discussed with the Premier, who, as the hon. Member knows, is in London.

Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend explain the position with regard to Anguilla? Does any aid for that island have to go through the St. Kitts Government? If so, is there any strong advice that my right hon. Friend can give to the St. Kitts Government about it?

Mr. Prentice: As I explained in reply to an earlier Question, aid is being arranged directly to Anguilla. Perhaps I should have added that this is being done with the agreement of the St. Kitts Government.

Population Bureau

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement on the work so far of the Population Bureau of his Department.

Mr. Oram: I would refer the right hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) on 1st April.—[Vol. 781, c. 59.]

Sir D. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman make available the experience gained by this Population Bureau to his colleagues in the Government who have a more difficult problem than exists in most of the overseas territories with which his Department is concerned?

Mr. Oram: The Bureau has only recently been set up. One of its purposes is to disseminate information on the question of population control, and certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government will have access to it.

Cotton Textiles (Report)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will commission a study to assess the effect on countries in receipt of publicly-financed overseas aid of the imposition of tariffs or further quotas on the United Kingdom imports of cotton textiles from those countries.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what study his Department is making of the recent Report of the Textile Council on imports into the United Kingdom with special reference to imports from developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Oram: The recent Report by the Textile Council followed a study of the cotton and allied textiles industry as a whole, and as such it is being carefully studied by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Matters of this kind, which may affect the interests of developing countries, are of course constantly scrutinised by my economic planning staff, and they are currently studing the Council's Report.

Mr. Biffen: Surely the prospect of a 15 per cent. tariff on imported cotton goods must be of such significance that the hon. Gentleman has already been advised to some degree of the conquence that it will have on the economy of these countries. Why is he not prepared to share that view with the House?

Mr. Oram: The matter needs more study than has yet been given to it. The information and the opinion of the Government will be available at the proper time.

Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that even the most cursory study would convince him and his colleagues that such a proposition would have a deleterious effect on the exports of developing countries, which rely heavily upon textiles for their foreign currency earnings? Will he make the strongest representations to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to this effect?

Mr. Oram: I assure my hon. Friend that before the Government take any final decisions about the adoption of any of the proposals in the Report, the effect on developing countries, particularly those which receive our aid, will be very carefully studied.

Mr. Braine: The House will be seized of the obvious contradiction between this country providing aid to certain other countries and, at the same time, denying them reasonable access to the markets of the developed world. While I am fully aware that there are many implications for our own textile industry, the matter is of such importance that I wonder whether the Minister can give the House any indication of when the results of the study will be made available to Parliament.

Mr. Oram: It is true that there are conflicting interests in these matters, which is why we need to make a careful study of them. I am not at present in a position to say when the results of the study will be forthcoming.

India and Pakistan (Aid)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much aid he estimates will be allocated to India and Pakistan, respectively, in the financial year 1969–70; in what form and on what terms the aid will be given; and how much he estimates India and Pakistan, respectively, will repay during the same period in interest and amortisation on previous aid from this country.

Mr. Prentice: The United Kingdom will pledge its aid to India and Pakistan for the year 1969–70 at the Consortium


meetings to be held in Paris during the week commencing 18th May and I will make an announcement about this as soon as possible. We expect to pledge aid in both project and non-project form and its terms will be interest-free loans repayable over 25 years with a seven-year period of grace. I estimate that during 1969–70 India will pay to the United Kingdom £7·4 million and £13·2 million and Pakistan £1·5 million and £1·4 million, respectively, in interest and amortisation. The level of our gross aid disbursements to both countries is, of course, well above the level of repayments.

Mr. Braine: Whilst I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for giving us so much information, in view of India's continuing burden of repayment can the right hon. Gentleman estimate the proportion of gross aid, both British and multilateral, which will be available for new expenditure in India?

Mr. Prentice: I cannot make that estimate without giving the figure for the coming year. In the past year, we have provided £7·5 million towards the multilateral debt relief scheme out of our total disbursements of £31 million.

Loans (Repayment)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will seek to establish an Overseas Development Fund into which repayments by developing countries of interest and capital can be paid.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. It would be contrary to practice to hypothecate loan repayments and interest, which go direct to the Consolidated Fund as extra receipts. It might also be held to undermine Parliamentary responsibility for voting Supply.

Mr. Judd: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that to present the aid programme in gross terms without allowing for interest and capital repayments is misleading and that the establishment of a fund of this kind would enable us to give a much better picture of the net form of our aid programme?

Mr. Prentice: As to presentation, I agree that it is important to see the net result as well as the gross figure. In a recent White Paper, I told the House

that in future the Financial Secretary's Memorandum on the Estimates would include repayments. This will also be a feature of the five-year survey on public expenditure which was proposed in the recent Green Paper. That also will show the net as well as the gross figures.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will seek to empower the Commonwealth Development Corporation to establish a revolving fund into which interest and capital repayments from their projects can be paid.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I do not see advantages to justify such a fundamental change, involving legislation, in the present arrangements.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that these C.D.C. schemes in recent years have been making a profit, and that, again, it is misleading to represent what we provide each year as an aid programme and it would be much more meaningful to establish it on this kind of basis which would enable the general public to see the real net cost?

Mr. Prentice: I think the operations of the C.D.C. do promote development and should be seen as part of the aid picture. I agree in this respect, as well as in the broader scope of the previous Question, that this would give us the net position as well as the gross one. This year C.D.C. will receive £10 million in Government advances and will repay £6¼ million to the Government in respect of capital and interest payments on their outstanding advances.

South Yemen

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when he plans to resume negotiations with the Republic of South Yemen about future British aid to that country.

Mr. Prentice: I have no plans to resume negotiations with the Republic of South Yemen.

Mr. Hooley: But notwithstanding the unhappy circumstances in which we severed our connection with that part of the world, would my right hon. Friend not agree that there are very strong political reasons why we should seek to be on


good terms with the Republic of South Yemen? In view of the fact that we exploited this territory for 150 years, should we not now take a somewhat more generous attitude?

Mr. Prentice: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have granted aid to the territory to the value of £12 million for the six months after independence, and, following that, we made a further offer of £1·8 million for a further period, which may seem to be small in relation to the whole of our commitments but which, seen in relation to a territory of little more than 1 million inhabitants, and the total aid programme, was not an ungenerous offer; but it was turned down by the South Yemen Government.

Mr. Braine: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that British interests are scarcely advanced by giving aid to this particular territory when there are so many competing claims from Commonwealth countries of a very urgent nature?

Mr. Prentice: We were prepared, as I have explained, to make a further offer of aid—a reduced offer—but it had to be seen in relation to our total aid programme and our commitments elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Paget: It is said that we exploited this area but was there a single year of our occupation in which we had a favourable balance of trade, and did not we continually pour money into the place every year?

Mr. Prentice: I do not think we really advance consideration of these matters by trying to create a balance sheet of exploitation and advantage one way or the other. I try to look at this matter as one of promoting development most effectively, and that is what I have to take into account in deciding the priorities in the aid programme.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Before making any further offer, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that no former employee of the British Crown who was left behind in that country is suffering injustice?

Mr. Prentice: That question is one which would have to be considered if there were a resumption of aid. Clearly, we expect the Government there to

assume responsibility for payment of pensions and other benefits which are due to ex-employees of the Government.

India (Exports of Cotton Goods)

Dr. Gray: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proposals he had made for giving aid to the Indian Government to increase her exports to this country of cotton goods.

Mr. Prentice: None, Sir. Nor have I received any request from the Government of India for an allocation of aid for such purposes.

Dr. Gray: If the President of the Board of Trade does decide to impose tariffs or quotas, has my right hon. Friend any proposals in mind to compensate the Indian Government for any losses which they may suffer as far as the export of textiles is concerned, and has he any proposals to increase them?

Mr. Prentice: I think that all that is premature. As my hon. Friend told the House in answer to an earlier Question, no Government decision has yet been made on the Textile Council's Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Oral Contraception

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will initiate, through the National Health Service, an inquiry into the adverse effects of oral contraception.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): It is the responsibility of the Committee on Safety of Drugs to monitor adverse reactions to all drugs, including oral contraceptives. This work is supplemented by a number of research projects into the long term effects of oral contraception.

Miss Lestor: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, though, that statements which are continually being made, presumably by people in authority, on the causal connection between, for instance, thrombosis and the pill and cancer and the pill, are causing a great deal of concern among many women, and would not an inquiry of the nature suggested here, with publication of the results, do


a great deal both to allay the fears and to add some knowledge on the subject?

Mr. Crossman: We have to consider carefully whether the announcement of yet another inquiry might stimulate doubts. No, the Medical Research Council, the Family Planning Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners are all conducting research into this subject, and will announce the results as soon as possible.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what programme of health education on the use of oral contraception is being followed by the Health Education Council.

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that as a first step the Council is setting up an Advisory Panel on Sex Education, whose priority task will be to consider the problem of educating the public in the use of all kinds of contraceptives. It will also be asked to advise on the extension of training and education of professional and lay workers in this field of health education.

Miss Lestor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this news will be received with pleasure by large numbers of people, but would he not agree that unless local authorities face their responsibilities in this matter—which is, of course, the other side of the problem of abortions—a lot of this work will be wasted, and would he not consider making it mandatory upon local authorities actually to set up family planning clinics?

Mr. Crossman: I would not disguise from my hon. Friend that I myself would like to make it mandatory, but it would be unfair to make it mandatory unless money were available, and that is the reason why we are not doing so at present.

Dr. David Kerr: But are there not other alternatives which my right hon. Friend will note? Would he consider that, if local authorities are failing to provide these services, he might offer the assistance of regional hospital boards and the general practitioners to provide alternative sources of advice and appropriate appliances and drugs?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful for that suggestion. The hospital boards and the

hospitals themselves have responsibility for the patients in hospital. As for the general practitioners, I should like to tell my hon. Friend that we have this year extended the grant to the Family Planning Association to assist in the training of general practitioners for what is a wholly desirable part of their duty.

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received asking him not to publicise evidence linking the contraceptive pill with thrombosis or cervical cancer; and what is his latest estimate of the statistical risk of contracting either illness, and of death due to either illness, as a result of taking the pill regularly.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, following the evidence given at a recent inquest at Dudley, he will require the Dunlop Committee on Safety of Drugs to examine the results of recent research in the United States of America, details of which have been sent to him, which suggest that there are six times more cases of womb cancer in women who take the pill than in those who do not.

Mr. Crossman: No such representations have been made to me. The estimated annual risk of venous thrombo-embolism requiring hospital admission is about 5 per 100,000 for women not using oral contraceptives and about ten times higher for those using them. The estimated annual risk of death from pulmonary embolism or cerebral thrombosis in healthy women not using oral contraceptives is 0·2 per 100,000 in those aged 20–34 and 0·5 per 100,000 in those aged 35–44, and is also about 10 times higher in those using them. I am advised that a statistical correlation between the use of oral contraceptives and cervical cancer has not been established, but I am asking the Committee on Safety of Drugs to examine the published article referred to in recent Press reports.

Mr. Brooks: I welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friend to establish the scientific facts, but will not he agree that certain irresponsible allegations have recently been made in coroner's courts which have caused unnecessary anxiety to many women and quite gratuitous offence to the pharmaceutical industry?

Mr. Crossman: There is something in what my hon. Friend says. The committee on Safety of Drugs has carefully considered all the evidence and has decided that, despite the evidence of adverse reactions to oral contraceptives they should still be on sale. I absolutely trust the Committee on Safety of Drugs. If there had been the vaguest doubt, the Committee would not have said that.

Dr. David Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend seek early opportunities to offer assurance on this question not merely to the House but to the many women who have grave reservations about a drug which should be widely used? Will he, please, in presenting figures, compare not the age groups which do and do not use the drugs, but the expected frequency of thrombo-embolic phenomena in pregnant women, which is what this form of oral contraception protects women against? This figure, as I am sure he will agree, is much more striking.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, but it is important to present the figures as strictly objectively as possible, because one may be counter-productive if one does not, and I have presented them in an absolutely objective way.

National Health Service Contributions

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the cost of National Health Service contributions.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): If the hon. Member means the contributions to the National Health Service proposed in the White Paper, Cmnd. 3883, the details of the short-term benefits and the National Health Service contributions will be announced later.

Mr. Macmillan: Will the Minister say what effect the arrangements to be made for paying for the increased pension are likely to have on the health stamp? Will he also say whether, in view of the rising costs which have prompted the increase in health charges, he is considering raising the contribution made for the stamp, which now covers only about 10 per cent. of the total cost of the health bill?

Mr. Ennals: These are both different questions from the one which I assumed from the wording in the original Question. The hon. Gentleman had better wait to say what he has to say until the debate on Thursday.

National Superannuation and Social Insurance (White Paper)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the changes in pension benefit and contributions forecast in the Budget will have upon the proposals set out in the White Paper on National Superannuation and Social Insurance.

Mr. Ennals: None, Sir.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has the Minister considered the advantages of a system of graduated contributions and flat-rate benefits?

Mr. Ennals: I assure the hon. Gentleman that during the time we took to prepare the new scheme we gave thought to whether there should be graduated contributions for flat-rate benefits, but the conclusion was that there should be both graduated contributions and graduated benefits. I am certain that that decision was right and fair to all concerned.

Private Occupational Pension Schemes

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made in his discussions with representatives of the Life Offices Association and other bodies responsible for the administration of private occupational pension schemes in regard to contracting out; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 28th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 161–2.]

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does the Secretary of State approve the suggestion by the Life Offices Association that the contribution from general taxation to the fund should be increased as time goes by?

Mr. Crossman: That is a different question. We have started the discussions, and our first consultative document


was issued on 24th April. This set out the system of contracting-out proposed and indicated the range for the amount of the pension abatement, so we are now discussing the first step.

Widows

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now reconsider the position of widows under 50 years of age so as to allow a pension right to be determined in accordance with the number of years a deceased husband has contributed under the National Insurance Scheme.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member will see from paragraphs 79–81 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 3883) that the Government share the concern about the age 50 condition for widow's pension. It is therefore proposed that existing widows who were aged between 40 and 50 at widowhood will qualify for a scaled-down flat-rate pension under the new scheme arrangements.

Mr. Williams: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he realises that a big problem is involved in this matter since a number of hubands firmly believe that, by paying a contribution to National Insurance, they are providing a pension for their widows? Could he not give such people hope that in the near future they will helped over their problem in regard to pensions?

Mr. Ennals: This is precisely what the White Paper does. It gives not only hope but confidence to the widow that she will benefit in widowhood as well as in retirement from contributions paid by her husband. This is one of the great achievements of the new scheme, which will soon be on the Statute Book.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Could the Minister say whether when the scheme is introduced it could be retrospective, and if so, how far back it could go in order to take in widows even as far back as 10 years and up to the present time?

Mr. Ennals: It will not be possible to introduce a retrospective scheme but, as I said, it will apply to existing widows aged between 40 and 50 at widowhood so that they will get some benefit.

Rubella (Vaccination)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to permit vaccination against rubella under the National Health Service following the clinical trials which commenced in October, 1967.

Mr. Ennals: It is too early to say.

Mr. Pavitt: While not wishing to press my hon. Friend to take risks which might have side effects, may I ask him to apprecite that this could be the biggest breakthrough in deafness this century and that it could save the Ministry many millions of £s over the years? Will he see that no undue delay occurs?

Mr. Ennals: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no undue delay in this matter. Clinical trials into this vaccine are still proceeding. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which advises my right hon. Friend, will be reviewing the subject tomorrow, although I do not think it likely that at this stage it will be able to make a recommendation. I assure my hon. Friend that the importance of this matter is fully understood by my Department.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What is rubella?

Mr. Ennals: It is a form of German measles.

Medicines Commission

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now announce the names of the persons he proposes to appoint to serve on the Medicines Commission; when the first meeting will be held; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: A further statement must await the completion of consultations to which I referred in my reply on 22nd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker).—[Vol. 782, c. 69–70.]

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend pursue this matter with all urgency, remembering that a number of questions must be answered concerning the appointment of people to serve on the Medicines Commission? In the discussions that he is having, will he ensure that the teeth, so to speak, which the


Sainsbury Report offered in this matter are re-established in view of the fact that they were taken out by the Medicines Act?

Mr. Crossman: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. I would remind him, when he refers to delay and the need for urgency, that about 40 bodies must be consulted.

Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman push ahead as fast as he can with this matter? Does he realise how undesirable it is for there to be a long delay between an Act coming into force and it being put into operation through the Medicines Commission?

Mr. Crossman: I accept the pressure from both sides of the House on this matter.

Retirement Pension (Increase)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement on the financing of the proposed retirement pension increase proposed in the Budget and the extent to which other social service benefits are also affected.

Mr. Ennals: I have nothing to add yet to what my right hon. Friend said in his Budget Statement and in winding up the Budget debate.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prolonged ambiguity by the Government over this substantial item of public expenditure is contributing to the misery of his colleagues who are renegotiating with the bailiffs of the International Monetary Fund?

Mr. Ennals: I have rarely heard such absolute nonsense. The hon. Gentleman really must restrain himself. If he feels as strongly as he says, presumably he will try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Thursday, as I hope to do.

Lord Balniel: Are supplementary benefits to be increased in the autumn? Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that substantial extra provision would be required to restore the National Insurance Fund to solvency? How much extra provision will be required?

Mr. Ennals: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary

question is that supplementary benefits will be increased. I cannot at this stage give the figure, but it will be given later. I cannot answer the second part, although the hon. Gentleman may also try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Thursday and attempt to talk on this subject.

Lord Balniel: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nobody, not even a Minister, can pre-empt for a Member the catching of Mr. Speaker's eye. Lord Balniel.

Lord Balniel: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Secretary of State personally will try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Thursday?

Mr. Ennals: I shall be seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Thursday.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: On a point of order. As the Minister inadvertently answered my Question No. 56, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to put a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: A good try, but I think not.

Supplementary Benefits (Women)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what instructions are given to officers of his Department when the need to verify the accuracy of claims for supplementary benefits by widows or other women living alone arises.

Mr. Crossman: Officers are expected to use tact and discretion in making any inquiries that may become necessary if there are grounds for thinking that a woman's circumstances may have changed, or that a false statement may have been made in connection with her claim.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern about the invasion of privacy and the spying that is going on in certain cases when cohabitation is being investigated by some of his officers? Will he again issue instructions to all the officers of his Department to see that this job is done with great tact and decency?

Mr. Crossman: I really do not believe that it is necessary for me to do that. Indeed, to do so would imply a lack of confidence in my investigators, which I do not feel. There is really no reasonable doubt now that in this area there is a degree of abuse of supplementary benefits which must be looked into sensibly. I do not think that my investigators are doing a bad job.

Pensioners (Rent and Rate Rebates)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is aware that pensioners claiming social security payment of a few shillings a week incur the loss of local council rent and rate rebates; and whether he will instruct his officials to draw this fact to the attention of those claiming such payments.

Mr. Ennals: All officers concerned are instructed that where any rent or rate rebate is more advantageous than the supplementary benefit entitlement, they should advise tenants to apply for the appropriate rebate and forgo supplementary benefit.

Sir B. Janner: Is my hon. Friend not aware of the fact that, apparently, there are some people who do not know about this, and would he ensure that it is made more public, because considerable hardship is inflicted on those who are placed in a serious position because of this anomaly?

Mr. Ennals: I am sorry to hear that this is not better known. Supplementary benefit officers are naturally aware of this themselves and they take steps to see that claimants for supplementary benefit have explained to them the consequences on both rent and rate rebates. But I will look again to see about the form of publicity.

Overseas Doctors (Employment)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has had with the appropriate medical authorities about the need for overseas doctors who seek employment in this country to have a higher standard of spoken English; and what action is to be taken to achieve this objective.

Mr. Crossman: I have consulted representatives of the profession and other interested bodies with a view to strengthening and extending the present voluntary attachment scheme which provides overseas doctors with an introduction to clinical practice in this country. I have also asked hospital authorities to consider whether their arrangements for selecting doctors for employment are adequate.

Mr. Smith: But does not the Secretary of State feel that it is absolutely essential that overseas doctors should undergo some compulsory form of assessment of their English before they take posts in this country?

Mr. Crossman: I have considered this very carefully, and I would hope that as a result of what I have been saying we can move towards a compulsory system, but there would be very widespread exemptions. Many of the people who come from overseas will have no requirement for it, for they will have learned here and will have done their studies here, and I do not want to impose a compulsory scheme on those who could well be exempted.

Mr. Paget: In considering this shortage of doctors should we not be profoundly grateful to these people who come to help us out, and should we not try to cut out all this criticism?

Mr. Crossman: Of course we should be grateful to overseas doctors, but also we should consider making sure that there is not a doctor practising who is not capable of communicating successfully with both nurse and patient. We are grateful to them, and we want to help them to do their job.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: But does not the Secretary of State think that the real responsibility rests on the employing authority to see that doctors do have enough command of English, and will he take some steps to tackle the other side of the problem, which is to prevent English doctors leaving this country in such large numbers?

Mr. Crossman: There is no question of prevention in the sense of legal embargoes on people to prevent them from leaving. The way to prevent them is to give them a decent career structure, and


that is what we are trying to do, and as I said in the second part of my previous answer, the hospital authorities have responsibility, but I also consider that the attachment scheme, if it is strengthened and extended, will be a useful adjunct to the hospitals' responsibilities.

Strikers (Welfare Benefits)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study he has given to information available to him from international sources about the access of the families of men who withdraw their labour in an industrial dispute to welfare benefits financed from public funds in Holland, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Japan and the United States of America; and if he will take step to bring British practice into conformity with that prevailing overseas.

Mr. Ennals: The availability of benefits to strikers and their dependants in other countries, and in some cases within those countries, varies greatly, and any detailed study of the relevant provisions would be unprofitable. It is clear that no common pattern has been established from which conclusions could be drawn.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not it a fact that in the vast majority of the countries which are our overseas competitors no taxpayer subsidy is paid to strikers and that, so long as we continue to provide such a subsidy, we are imposing additional burdens in international competition on our taxpayers?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. His deductions on whether other countries' strikers are in a better position do not tally with mine. If one looks at Germany, Sweden and parts of the United States, there is no doubt that the financial support for a striker is more substantial than in this country. If one looks at the Low Countries, France and certain parts of the United States the provision is less. A general conclusion such as that reached by the hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware, whether or not the point made by the hon. Gentleman is correct, that the incidence of strikes in most of the countries mentioned in the Question is much higher than in this country?

Mr. Ennals: This is a question for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Nurses (Pay)

Mr Maurice Macmillan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will give an estimate of the cost of implementing the proposals of the Royal College of Nursing for an increase in pay of student and pupil nurses.

Mr. Crossman: The proposal was for an increase of £1 a week, and I gave the estimated cost of this in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) on 30th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 255.]

Mr. Macmillan: Will the Secretary of State consider the drop-out rate of nurses in training, and will he realise that if even 10,000 nurses could be saved out of the 40 per cent. who now fail to complete their training, this would represent only about £450 a nurse? This might save a good deal of money and bring a little more justice into dealing with the hardly-used body of student nurses.

Mr. Crossman: I am very sympathetic with the problem of student nurses, and there is a lot to be said for the view that we have to consider their whole status. After all, they are sometimes treated as juniors when they are above the age of majority under the new Act. Nevertheless, this is a wage agreement which has just been agreed with the Whitley Council and which has only just come into force. I am prepared to give the Whitley Council a chance to consider it again. There is an area which I want to look at, and that is the money, not strictly the wage, paid to student nurses.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say, if not now then in writing, what was the drop-out when the freeze of nurses' pay was implemented by the party opposite, compared with the drop-out referred to by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he will put that down as a Question, I shall have much pleasure in answering it.

Dame Irene Ward: Is not the Whitley Council meeting today to discuss these matters, and will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what instructions have been given by him to the management side of the Whitley Council, so that we may know what the Minister wishes the management side of the Whitley Council to agree with the staff side?

Mr. Crossman: The meeting takes place not today but tomorrow. The answer to the second part of the hon. Lady's question is, "No".

Nurses (Pay-as-you-eat Scheme)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what representations he has received in the last month concerning the operation of the pay-as-you-eat scheme for hospital nurses; and what steps have been taken to remedy the grievances of nurses on this matter;
(2) what steps he has taken to ensure that all National Health Service hospitals have a scale of meal charges which are within the capacity of all student and other nurses to pay.

Mr. Crossman: The representations have been about the adequacy of the reduction in the former board and lodging charge to enable meals to be paid for as taken. Many of them have been based on misunderstandings, but the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council is considering certain problems which have arisen in the introduction of the new arrangements; and my Department has written to all hospital authorities asking them to ensure that meals are provided at the standard charges on which the arrangements are based.

Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend say what he meant in his Answer by the phrase "based on misunderstandings"? Did he read the article in yesterday's Sunday Times which presented a disturbing picture of student nurses having to work 20 to 24 hours in a day to make their wage into a living wage, and when does he expect to produce a report on this matter?

Mr. Crossman: I did not read the article in the Sunday Times. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling it to my attention. The representations were

not about the package as a whole, but about the arrangements for meals. The rest of the package was broadly accepted.

Mr. Dean: Can the Minister explain how the arrangements about meals have gone so badly wrong? Surely the management side of the Whitley Council is responsible to him and takes its instructions from his Department?

Mr. Crossman: I am prepared straight away to say that of course my Department has a large degree of responsibility in these matters, as does the Prices and Incomes Board, too, since this was a discussion of proposals from the Board. I am not yet convinced that the whole proposal has gone wrong. On the contrary, I believe that it is what the nurses wanted; they had asked for it for years. The difficulty is whether it is valid and satisfactory for all student nurses in all hospitals. One of our difficulties is the extraordinary variations in hospital meals served in different hospitals. This is what we have tried to regularise by the letter which has been sent out to hospital boards.

Mr. Whitaker: Surely it is in the public interest to correct the income structure of this country so that it should be more generous to people such as nurses, who do such a valuable job and never go on strike?

Mr. Crossman: I agree with my hon Friend. That is why I was pleased that the last pay package was a generous one which greatly improved their standing and their pay.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Unless something is done about this matter, in many cases nurses who work on night shifts will go short of food. This will be a big setback to recruitment. Will the Minister ask the Whitley Council to reconsider the matter before more damage is done?

Mr. Crossman: I again will explain that the Whitley Council is meeting tomorrow. It has a number of proposals to consider. Therefore, before we discuss the matter further, we ought to wait and see what it concludes.

Wesham Park Hospital

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is now the waiting list for admission to Wesham


Park Hospital; what was the waiting list on 31st December, 1964; and what plans he has for increasing the accommodation for geriatric patients in the Blackpool and Fylde area.

Mr. Crossman: Sixty-Six at 31st March, 1969; 33 at 31st December, 1964. Both these figures cover Wesham Park and Rossall Hospitals, which are one administrative unit. A new ward of 166 beds was opened at Wesham Park on 31st March this year. The Regional Hospital Board's building programme includes provision for a 30-bed geriatric assessment unit at Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, and the Board hopes later to provide a unit of 80 to 100 beds for acute geriatric patients at the same hospital.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very high proportion of old people in this area and that there is an impression that it is more difficult for an old person to get into hospital when suffering from the same illness compared with a young person? Will he therefore continue to give high priority to increasing the provision for old people in this area?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that the need for accommodation in this area is very acute. I can only add that when the 30-bed unit at the Victoria Hospital is in operation, we will have got the provision of geriatric beds for the area very near to the Department's norm of 10 beds per 1,000 people over 65.

Abortion Act, 1967

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now take action to increase the facilities within the National Health Service for operations under the Abortion Act, 1967, in view of the deficiencies of private nursing homes.

Mr. Crossman: The capacity of the private sector is not a relevant factor in deciding what should be provided through the National Health Service, except in so far as it may affect the demand for the services of the National Health Service.

Mrs. Short: Is the refusal of gynaecologists a factor? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have sent him information

about large numbers of women who have been refused help under the National Health Service in the London area and that I have another batch from the Midlands which I will be letting him have today? Will my right hon. Friend now face up to his responsibilities and see that National Health Service hospitals carry out their duties under the Act?

Mr. Crossman: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for the help and information she provides. I have explained to her more than once that I am unhappy to observe the discrepancy which exists between the services provided by the National Health Service in, for example, the Birmingham area as well as in the Newcastle area. We must look at the provisions of the Act carefully and also take account of the clinical freedom of consultants. These matters are not quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests.

Sir G. Nabarro: Since my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has already given notice of an amending proposal to the main enactment, would not it be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to withhold making any further comments on this intricate matter—[Interruption.]—until the House has an opportunity again to debate the progress or otherwise of the main Statute—

Mrs. Short: Nonsense.

Sir G. Nabarro: —which should be before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. I do not think that the House need await an hon. Gentleman's proposed amendment before discussing the existing state of the law. The law is the law and, personally, I do not think that it would be wise for there to be an early amendment of the Act. We must watch the operation of the Act for a considerably longer time before deciding whether or not it needs amending.

Mental Hospitals

Mr. Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much extra revenue he plans to allocate to mental hospitals in order to improve their standards.

Mr. Crossman: I have asked each regional hospital board to reconsider the


distribution of revenue funds within its total regional allocation, so as to improve its psychiatric and geriatric services, especially for long-stay patients, and to report to me. This exercise will take account of variations in present standards between regions.

Mr. Dean: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's Answer, may I ask him to realise that the redistribution will mean robbing one part of the Service to assist another? Even if he allocates the whole of the additional £3½ million from the increased charges for teeth and spectacles, is he not aware that additional sources of revenue are urgently needed if our mental hospitals are to have the priority that they require?

Mr. Crossman: It is, of course, true that every Secretary of State would like for the National Health Service a larger slice of the available funds, but we must work within our existing budgets. I warn the hon. Gentleman that in the immediate future—that is, if he agrees with me that the hospitals for the subnormal represent a deprived area—we must plan a reallocation of priorities within the Service and not simply ask for more money which is not available.

Mr. Pavitt: While my right hon. Friend is examining the whole question of mental health and geriatrics, will he expedite the co-ordination of local, National Health Service and general practitioner services, since only by combining the operations of these three wings of the National Health Service will we solve this problem?

Mr. Crossman: I agree with my hon. Friend in theory, but the more I go round the country the more depressed I become at the failure of the services of the National Health Service on the one side and the local community services on the other to work together. Many of these services are being paid for in different ways, without adequate integration. My hon. Friend is, therefore, really speaking of a properly integrated National Health Service.

Mr. Deedes: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what his views are about extra revenue for community services for mental health outside the mental hospitals?

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me about this. Quite frankly, the need for community-based services outside mental hospitals is at least as great as the need for investment inside. If we could get hostels for psychiatric patients outside in the community, we would be doing the real job, which is to reduce the number of people permanently resident in these long-term hospitals. I could not agree more.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAY MAGISTRACY (BLIND PERSONS)

Mr. Henig: asked the Attorney-General what representations he has recently received about the appointment of blind persons to the lay magistracy; and what reply he has sent.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I have received no representations recently about the appointment of blind persons to the lay magistracy.

Mr. Henig: Could my right hon. and learned Friend confirm whether or not it is the case that in the last 20 years no blind person has been appointed to the lay magistracy? Would he not agree that suitably qualified blind persons could do a most valuable job of work on the magistrates' bench? Will he therefore take some action to put this matter right?

The Attorney-General: No person who is blind has been appointed to the magistracy in the period mentioned by my hon. Friend. That has been in conformity with the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace 20 years ago that no person who is blind ought to be appointed a justice. While my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have every sympathy with those who have made representations on this matter, we agree with that view. In our view it is essential that magistrates should, among other things, be able to observe the demeanor of witnesses, and we think that it is also vital that the public should have complete confidence in the fact that they should have no reason to think that in some cases magistrates may be unable to perform their duties effectively.

Mr. Henig: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that, in view of the


unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. ROBERT WINTER (PROSECUTION)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Attorney-General if he will make an ex-gratia payment to cover the costs of Mr. Robert Winter of the Tiger Club, who was prosecuted for low flying and acquitted.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Attorney-General if he will make an ex-gratia payment to Mr. Robert Winter of the Tiger Club following his acquittal on a charge of low flying.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Since the Director of Public Prosecutions has apparently prosecuted the wrong person in this case, is it reasonable that somebody who is totally innocent should be asked to pay £250 costs? Why should not the Attorney-General have another look at this case, or does he want to be known as a modern Morton's fork?

The Attorney-General: I do not easily recognise the comparison, nor do I accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman supplementary question. When a defendant is acquitted, it is for the court to decide whether he should be awarded costs. In this case the application of the defendant for costs was rejected by the court.

Mr. Hunt: Would not the Attorney-General agree that this case has engendered an immense amount of resentment and feeling within the amateur flying world? In view of the total lack of evidence against Mr. Winter, is it not clear that these proceedings should never have been brought and is not some apology due to him?

The Attorney-General: We had a discussion on this during an earlier Question Time. The proceedings were brought by the Director on evidence available to him. It is the case that the defendant was acquitted, but that is not a wholly exceptional event in our administration of justice.

Mr. Carlisle: Although I agree that the awarding of costs is a matter for the courts, would not the right hon. and

learned Gentleman agree that more generous use of a court's power to award costs to those acquitted and to order payment of costs by those who are convicted would be a most suitable move?

The Attorney-General: It may be that the courts will read the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree, with his usual fairness, that lay litigants in person should in principle have their costs taxed as generously as lawyers'.

The Attorney-General: I am bound to say that I am sympathetic with these questions, but they are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBE CUTTING (INVESTIGATION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General why there is delay in the conduct of the investigation into the practice known as cube cutting; when he now expects the report will be published; and whether he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: There is no delay in the conduct of this investigation. Police inquiries have entailed a great deal of research into a large volume of documents, and it is not possible to say at the moment when their inquiries will be completed. Police reports are confidential and it is not the practice to publish them.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Attorney-General aware of the fact that the original complaint was made many weeks ago and that it was then said that a report would be published? May we ask why it has taken so long? Could he have a discussion with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to try to get some productivity going in the legal department?

The Attorney-General: I am not aware that there was any undertaking to publish this report. It would be quite contrary to practice and propriety to publish a police investigation into alleged criminal offences. But I assure my hon.


Friend, whose zeal for the enforcement of the criminal law I can only admire, that investigations are being carried out as quickly as possible.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

Mr. Dickens: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
That the conditions being laid down by the International Monetary Fund for the granting of a stand-by credit to rephase the repayment dates of earlier borrowing by the United Kingdom are unacceptable in that they will seriously interfere with the right and duty of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government to determine the economic policies of the United Kingdom in the years ahead.
In the few minutes at my disposal, I wish to refer to a precedent for my application this afternoon under Standing Order No. 9. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, following devaluation in November, 1967, on 30th November that year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in response to a Question asked of him by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), agreed to publish the Letter of Intent which had been sent out seven days before by his predecessor, the present Home Secretary, to Mr. Schweitzer, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund.
To his credit, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) at once sought the leave of the House to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. He did so on that occasion unsuccessfully because you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the House could not consider the matter before publication of the Letter of Intent. Publication took place on the following day, Friday, 1st December.
On Monday, 4th December, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) successfully sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 and the matter was debated on Tuesday, 5th December. But by that time all the important decisions had been taken. The rôle of this House and of Parliament had been negated. This House had no say whatsoever in the formulation of the

important and far-reaching policies set out in that letter.
Judging by the reports submitted by the most responsible financial journalists in this country, it appears that a similar Letter of Intent is currently in course of preparation. I content myself by quoting from one source, in this morning's Financial Times. Mr. Samuel Britten, economics editor, writing from Washington yesterday, said:
With negotiations on an I.M.F. standby credit of 1,000 million dollars nearing completion, it is already clear that Britain will have to give undertakings about the money supply of unprecedented stringency in return. This will be clear from the Letter of Intent which, as Mr. Harold Lever told the Commons last week, will again be published. And the Fund will clearly insist that its conditions are met as drawings on a standby are made.
I ask: where stands Parliament in these proceedings? There can be no doubt that the implications in this Letter of Intent will have the most far-reaching repercussions for this Government, for future Governments, and for the British people.
I suggest that Parliament should take note of and learn lessons from what happened on the earlier occasion in November, 1967, and that we should have the opportunity for an immediate debate, tomorrow, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give an account to the House and to the country of the negotiations currently in hand.
It would be improper for me to make any reference to Private Notice Questions, but it is a fact that some hon. Members have sought to raise this matter over the past few days in that way.
Finally, I say that the standing of this House and its membership is not all that it should be in the country. I can think of no greater step that we could take this afternoon to restore the supremacy of Parliament in this country than for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule in a positive way in accordance with the request that I now make.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to seek the leave of the House to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
That the conditions being laid down by the International Monetary Fund for the granting of a stand-by credit to rephase the repayment dates of earlier borrowing by the United Kingdom are unacceptable in that they will seriously interfere with the right and duty of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government to determine the economic policies of the United Kingdom in the years ahead.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Member, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I fully understand that it is not proper for me or for anyone else to question the Ruling that you have given, Mr. Speaker, and I do not seek to do so. But I submit that in the operation of a new rule, which this is—it has been in operation for about a couple of years now—it is possible for us to ask whether, despite the Ruling or the suggestion of the Select Committee on Procedure, you could give us some future guidance about the operation of the rule. It seems to me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will remember that he began by saying that he cannot question the Ruling.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am not questioning the Ruling, Sir.
It seems to me that it is a perfectly legitimate point of order, if we are to operate this Standing Order correctly in future, without questioning your Ruling, to ask whether it is possible for you, Mr. Speaker, despite the statement or the suggestion of the Select Committee on Procedure that you should not give reasons for your Ruling, to give some general guidance to the House, not only referring to this matter but to other matters, about the operation of the rule.
In this instance, your Ruling is especially striking in that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) said, on a previous occasion, referring to the operation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now beginning to question or criticise the Ruling. He cannot do that.

Mr. Foot: When I said at the beginning that I did not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I meant exactly what I said. I do not wish to question it at all.
I am seeking to discover whether you can assist by giving us some guidance about the operation of this rule in future, since it appears to us—this is not questioning the Ruling either now or on the previous occasion—that on the previous occasion you granted a debate in circumstances comparable with those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, except that on that occasion the Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund had been written, whereas on this occasion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that his hon. Friend has submitted to the Chair exactly the point that he is now putting to the Chair. The Chair has already ruled on it.
My Ruling on the broader point which the hon. Member has raised—for the second time—on Standing Order No. 9 is that I am instructed by the House not to give reasons for my Ruling. The House, in its wisdom, thought that if Mr. Speaker began to give reasons for his Rulings those reasons would become precedents which would tie up the procedure under Standing Order No. 9 as was the case before the reform started.
On the issue itself, I have ruled, and the hon. Gentleman must accept that.

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY RATES

Mr. Pardoe: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
international currency rates following the decision not to revalue the German mark.


I submit that this matter is definite, Mr. Speaker, because there is a crisis—no one can be unaware of that from this morning's newspapers—in the international currency markets. The decision was made on Friday, and it was that decision that created the crisis. Denmark has raised its Bank Rate from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. and Sweden will undoubtedly be following very shortly; indeed, she may have done so by now.
Foreign exchange dealers and bankers are reported as believing that the chaos in currencies will continue. I believe that it is urgent because the decision was taken only on Friday and this is the first opportunity to raise the matter. The currency situation is a fast-moving scene, and no one knows exactly what will happen next. There may be an interval of calm, but it is unlikely to be long, and the crisis is almost certain to break out at least before the French presidential elections on 1st June.
Thirdly, I submit that it is a matter of public importance which affects us all. It is not something that can be left to the bankers. A group of 60 West German economists and academics is reported only this morning as having said that the decision not to revalue the mark will strengthen the trend towards world economic disintegration. That is us; that is everyone in this country. This decision will vitally affect the living standards of everyone in the United Kingdom.
I therefore submit that on these grounds there is reason for a debate. Unfortunately, there is a record of non-debate in this matter. When the pressure is off we are inclined to say, "Leave well alone", and when the pressure is on, as it is now, we are inclined to say that it is too hot to handle. So we never discuss the subject. I believe that we must discuss it, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I seek your leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) for being courteous enough to inform me this morning that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
international currency rates following the decision not to revalue the German mark.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order. I do not want in any way to appear tiresome, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me quite intolerable that the House is not having any statement at all about the current financial position. I see that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is sitting on the Treasury Bench. Have you had any application made to you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, concerning a statement being made?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that if I had had such an application I would be calling the Minister now to make a statement.

Mr. Shinwell: It is possible to ascertain why the Financial Secretary has come into the House?

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that he was mildly interested in whether leave to move the Adjournment was granted.

Mr. Roebuck: May I point out, with respect, Mr. Speaker, the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Onslow, who said that the Chair always made the correct decisions but often for the wrong reasons, and that for that reason it would be improper for the Chair to give its reasons for its decisions. Is it not right to carry on with that very good tradition?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of Mr. Speaker Onslow, who was the greatest Speaker in the history of Parliament. I do not think, however, that he can help us this afternoon.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted up the selection of Amendments. There is no change from last week. We come now to Amendment No. 22.

Clause 7

POWERS OF THE POST OFFICE

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 36, leave out from first 'The' to end of line 37 and insert—
'Post Office shall have power, for the purpose of securing the effective exercise of any of the powers conferred on it by the foregoing subsection, or in connection with or in consequence of an exercise thereof, to do anything that it appears to it requisite, advantageous or convenient to do, including in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words) power'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take the following Amendments:
No. 25, in page 7, line 9, at end add—
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section the postal and telecommunications services operated by the Post Office shall remain in what is commonly called public ownership.
No. 33, in page 9, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert:
'and may turn its resources to account so far as not required for the purposes of its business'.
No. 34, in line 13, leave out paragraph (t).
No. 35, in line 15, leave out 'in its opinion'.
No. 36, in line 16, leave out 'or expedient'.

Mr. Stonehouse: Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that during our discussions on this Clause I undertook to consider the relationship between subsection (1), which sets out the powers of the Post Office Corporation, and subsection (2), which concern the additional powers, which I said in our proceedings in Committee must be taken in the context of the powers provided in subsection (1).
Hon. Members opposite submitted an Amendment in Committee, but I could not accept it. I undertook, however, to consider whether another Amendment could be put down in Report substantially to meet the point put forward by the Opposition. I now bring forward that Amendment to meet the undertaking that I then gave. The intention of the Amendment is to make it clear that Post Office activities in relation to subsection (2) relate to the main purposes set out in subsection (1), and that it is not the intention that the Post Office should undertake activities broadly ranging outside the spheres set out in subsection (1).
I hope that what I have said will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: This is an important Amendment in itself and it is even important because it has been linked with certain other Amendments—in particular, No. 25, which is a far-reaching one. I understand that as it has been selected it therefore receives the Government approval, since it is being taken with the Government Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be discussed with Amendment No. 22. Whether the Government approve of a back-bench Amendment is for the Government to say, not for the Chair.

Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stonehouse: I should like to say that the Government do not support Amendment No. 25.

Mr. Baker: It will not make entirely redundant the rest of my peech; none the less, it is encouraging.
I wish to produce some arguments which will perhaps steel the Government in their determination not to accept Amendment No. 25. I am at a loss to understand why that Amendment has been taken. We are discussing there a fundamental issue, namely, the partial or total denationalisation of the Post Office.
The history of this matter is very simple. On Second Reading, I suggested that under Clause 7(2)(g) the Post Office Corporation was empowered to sell off such parts of its undertakings as it wanted to. During the Committee stage this point was taken up, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who is not in his place today—and I do not mean to be critical of


him, because he was a most assiduous member of the Committee—moved an Amendment similar to Amendment No. 25 which, in effect, sought to forbid the Post Office to denationalise either part of itself or its complete entirety.
The Postmaster-General, in rejecting that Amendment, said in column 406:
The duty of the Post Office as set out in that Clause"—
that is Clause 9—
will not allow the Post Office Corporation to sell off the essential parts of its business …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st January, 1969; c. 406.]
I was encouraged to note from the Postmaster-General that it is not his intention to accept Amendment No. 25. I think that Amendment as it is drafted would have been very much against the spirit of the other provisions in Clause 7. This series of Amendments which we are discussing reveals an important difference between the two sides of the House. Here we are discussing the reasons why the Conservative Party stands for certain things and the Socialist Party stands for other things. The philosophical difference which divides our two sides on this issue is that on this side of the House, on the whole, we are in favour of reducing the rôle of the State and reducing the powers which these provisions give to the Post Office, while hon Members opposite are in politics to increase the rôle of the State and to extend those powers.
In Committee, the Postmaster-General rejected these arguments on the grounds that the Post Office was a natural monopoly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, on this Amendment we cannot discuss the whole philosophy of the two parties, and whatever was in order in Committee and on the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Member must link what he has to say with these Amendments.

Mr. Baker: Of course, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to address my remarks to Amendment No. 25, which has been selected for discussion with Amendment No. 22. I am opposing Amendment No. 25, which says that
… the postal and telecommunications services operated by the Post Office shall remain in … public ownership

because I believe that it will be to the benefit of the Post Office if part of the telecommunications side is divorced from public ownership. I am trying to address my remarks to that point.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend realise that he is addressing his remarks in the total absence of any back bench Member of the party who is responsible for this Amendment?

Mr. Baker: That does not surprise me at all. It is regrettable, but none the less those hon. Members will be able to read my remarks in HANSARD tomorrow—those who are lucky enough to get a copy—and they will be able to follow the main arguments adduced from this side of the House.
Those arguments are these. We should like to see a departure from the total public ownership of the Post Office because we do not believe that this Bill will make the Post Office as competitive as the Postmaster-General has said it will. The monopoly of the Post Office is being retained. It will also retain very special privileges. It will not have to compete with anybody with whom it does not want to compete. It will have special borrowing powers and special accountancy rules. That is not what we believe is true competition.
The reason that we want to see the public ownership of the Post Office reduced hinges upon investment and the investment programme of the Post Office. The Post Office's investment programme is absolutely vast. The Post Office capital expenditure amounts to about £1 million a day. The Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General are modest men, but they are almost the last of the big spenders. This is an enormous investment programme, and it has to compete with other demands from other nationalised industries. The demands are so great that this level of investment cannot be maintained if it remains in public ownership.
To give some idea of the competing demands, over the next four years the capital expenditure of those industries which remain in public ownership are as follows—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not extend his argument—I seem to have heard it before—on the broad issues that divide the House.


The House is aware of them. The hon. Gentleman must concentrate on the Amendments.

Mr. Baker: I shall not delineate the separate items in the investment programme, Mr. Speaker, but may I just say that capital expenditure of the nationalised industries taken together in the next four years represents approximately £7,500 million. That is roughly £1,500 million a year. Of this, the Post Office will require some £400 million. When we are asked to provide this amount of money for the capital expenditure of the Post Office we, as Members of the House of Commons, have to weigh the relative virtues of that money being spent in the Post Office and being spent in the public sector. When there is such a demand for schools, roads and hospitals, can any Government, whether it be Conservative or Socialist, justify a capital expenditure programme of that magnitude? I do not believe it can.
Therefore, I believe that the Post Office has to tap other sources of capital for its investment programme. If it remains in public ownership it is unable to do this. At the moment, it provides about one-third of its investment programme from its own sources, and it hopes this year to raise that contribution to one-half, which means that if the Post Office remains in public ownership the House of Commons will be asked to provide about £400 million this year for the capital expenditure of the Post Office.
The dilemma is this. I am not arguing that this money is not needed. I would say that at least that amount of money, and probably even more, is needed to allow for the technological changes which are round the corner. We should be pressing ahead now with things like push-button telephones and telephones with television receivers attached to them. This would involve an enormous amount of capital expenditure, and the nub of the case on this side of the House is that if the Post Office remains a State-controlled industry, the State cannot be expected to provide that amount of capital expenditure because there are so many other competing forces.
Therefore, I hope that the Post Office will be able to examine other ways of

raising this money, for I do not see any way in which it can be raised while the Post Office remains in public ownership. That is why I am arguing that it is necessary to consider alternative ways of raising this money and at the same time reducing the extent of public ownership.
On the telecommunications side—and it is that side which is the big spender in the Post Office, spending £1 million a day—I should like the public to be given the opportunity to subscribe to that investment programme. I should like the public to have an opportunity of positively contributing to it by putting their hands into their pockets, taking out their cheque books and writing cheques. But so long as the Post Office remains in public ownership, this cannot happen. All that happens is that the Post Office is given another opportunity to float a loan in a foreign country, like the Gas Council has done. But I cannot see the logic in allowing the German public to subscribe to the expansion of our Post Office without first letting the British public subscribe. That is why I am against continuing the 100 per cent. public ownership of the Post Office.
In my view, a B.P.-type deal could be worked out in which the public were allowed to subscribe for a certain proportion of the shares. I estimate that, if this were done, between £500 and £700 million would probably be raised, and in that way, at one go, one would have the next two or three years' capital expenditure on the telecommunications side in one's pocket.
This is an important point, for it divides the House. I shall not revert to the issue which divides our two parties, Mr. Speaker, but there is an important philosophical difference here. At this stage, I argue the matter on technical grounds. Unless something is done, no future Government will be able to maintain the investment programme of the Post Office. If we could have some measure of partial denationalisation, then, if nothing else, we should be allowed to buy our own telephone equipment direct from manufacturers. This would save the Post Office about £300 million over the next five years in expenditure on capital equipment. If a scheme could be worked out—I hope that it can be done—we should have the unique


advantage of letting the public have responsibility for ownership, with employees building up a stake in the business, and the corporation itself having the cash it needs.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I do not suggest that the Poet Laureate should be invited to do the Parliamentary drafting, but whoever put the verbiage of Amendment No. 22 on the Notice Paper has no feel for words. A case could almost be made for arguing that the whole Amendment was out of order because of tedious repetition.
First, towards the beginning of the Amendment, the Post Office is given power
for the purpose of securing the effective exercise of any of the powers conferred on it by the foregoing subsection"—
and then we have the words—
or in connection with or in consequence of an an exercise thereof …
If I were sending a telegram, I should not feel that the meaning of my message had been weakened if I saved myself the expense of that last passage.
A little further on, we find more verbiage:
to do anything that it appears to it requisite, advantageous or convenient to do …
Again, I hope that the Postmaster-General will explain what is meant. What is envisaged as being advantageous which is not requisite, and what is envisaged as convenient which is not requisite? If there is some fine demarcation of meaning between those two pairs of words, I utterly fail to detect it.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I think that my hon. Friend has stumbled on a misprint in one of the passages to which he has referred. The first "it" should not be there. It ought to be not
to do anything that it appears to it requisite"—
but—
to do anything that appears to it requisite".
My hon. Friend has done the House a service in drawing attention to the mistake.

Mr. Onslow: Ever since the "it" family was allowed to procreate without restraint, "its" have been littering the Notice Paper like hamsters. Perhaps I

can leave it to the Poet Laureate or the Parliamentary draftsmen to sort out whether all these words are necessary.
Next—I am bound to put this to the Postmaster-General—what is the meaning of
the generality of the foregoing words"?
What is the "generality"? It seems to be offered to us in the guise of a great sweeper-up which comes after all that has gone before and confers powers which may by some oversight of the Poet Laureate have been omitted up to that point. It is the most dreadful piece of drafting—

Mr. John Peyton: Not the worst, or the only one.

Mr. Onslow: I apologise to my hon. Friend. It is not the most dreadful piece of drafting in the Bill, but it runs a close second to others that he has already so carefully drawn to our attention.
Perhaps the Postmaster-General will direct his mind to what is required in sending a telegram, and realise that economy does not necessarily frustrate clear expression. This Amendment could have been considerably simplified if it were expressed in fewer words. Had it been simplified in that way, my second point might, perhaps, have not been so important as it at present seems, for I detect in the intended substituted words a considerable widening of Post Office powers.
We see in the rest of the subsection as it stands—I shall not read it all out—that very wide powers are to be given to the Post Office, including almost everything except the manufacture of arms. If there are some powers which it is thought necessary to give to the Post Office, wider powers than were thought necessary when the Bill was in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman might usefully have explained what they were.
I do not know whether my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will invite the House to reject Amendment No. 22. If they do, I shall have considerable sympathy with them, first, because I regard it as a piece of grievous bodily harm to the English language and something to be deplored on that ground, and second, because I detect in it a considerable widening of the powers of the Post Office which the Postmaster-General, for some


inscrutable reason, did not think it right to spell out when he introduced the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I direct attention to Amendment No. 33, and I shall not be as generous as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has been. That Amendment, which comes tucked away at the end of this long subsection (2), is an extraordinary piece of drafting. If it had been written in the Cyrillic alphabet, it would have been easier to understand. As it is, it is meaningless.
We are to take out the words
to do all other things which, in its opinion, are requisite or expedient to facilitate the proper carrying on of its business
and are to replace them by
and may turn its resources to account so far as not required for the purposes of its business".
I cannot understand what that means. The English leads one astray, though I have an idea of what is really intended.
When moving his Amendment, a few minutes ago, the Postmaster-General made clear that, in his opinion, he was trying to introduce an Amendment which would sensibly limit the freedom given by this subsection in line with subsection (1). However, if Amendment No. 33 is to be accepted, appalling though the English may be, the gate will be opened all over again. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that his Amendment No. 22 limits the powers, but by his later Amendment No. 33, which comes at the end of the Clause, he opens the gate once again to every sort of activity in which the Post Office might wish to engage. It is not good enough.
It may be good politics for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that he is listening to the debate and is anxious to meet everyone's point of view, but an Amendment of this kind, quite apart from its "Greek", will give him all those powers over again, throwing the net absolutely wide and making the Clause probably the biggest umbrella Clause of any Bill ever to come before the House, allowing a Government-sponsored body to enter into almost any field of activity it likes.
I hope that when he explains the Amendment to us the Postmaster-General

will first make the language clear. It leaves me in great doubt. I hope that he will also make clear what I think is in his mind—if it is not, he has the wrong form of words—to assure us that the limits he promises will appear somewhere in the Bill.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In introducing the Amendments the Postmaster-General spoke of meeting an Opposition point made in Committee. I do not feel that the words of the Amendments meet the point we made then, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is much more forthcoming when he replies I would advice by right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
The right hon. Gentleman promised in Committee to consider whether lines 35 and 36 on page 6 of the Bill might be reworded so that the Post Office's power of manufacture would be restricted. He made favourable noises without making a definite commitment. This is reported in columns 297–298 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings.
I am very unhappy with the wording of Amendment No. 22, which seems to go back on what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee, and even to make the whole scope of the Clause wider than it was when we orginally considered it. I am very dissatisfied with this.
In moving the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman said that the reason for it was to clarify the relationship between subsections (1) and (2). I do not think that the Amendment does the job, if that is what it is trying to do. The words in subsection (1) as to the kind of thing the Post Office is to do are in very wide terms. Subsection (2) contains the kind of specific things that are included in the objects clause and memorandum and articles of association of a company. It sets out in paragraphs (a) to (u) all the things, from running buses in the Highlands of Scotland to manufacturing, which the Post Office might attempt to do.
But now, by the words of Amendment No. 22, to the language of which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred in picturesque but not unfair terms, it is to incorporate the points in subsection (1). The Amendment continues:
… in connection with or in consequence of an exercise thereof, to do anything …"—


I emphasise the word "anything"—
that it appears to it requisite, advantageous or convenient to do,…
I repeat the words:
requisite, advantageous or convenient to do,…
This is unreasonably wide. Surely it is a further extension of the powers of the Post Office?
I do not know the reason for this. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was to meet points raised by the Opposition in Committee. I have a suspicion that it is all part of the rather sordid story of the pressures put on the right hon. Gentleman by the trade union group of M.P.s to extend the manufacturing powers of the Post Office. The words can be used to extend its manufacturing and other powers in a way not originally agreed when the House gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
In these circumstances, I must protest, first, against the wording; second, about the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, which was much too brief; and, third, against the whole principle behind the Amendment. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives a much more useful reply, I would advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) widened the debate a little, and I am sure that it would not meet with your approval, Mr. Speaker, if I tried to answer his philosophical exercise.
Then the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), in a very repetitive speech, complained about the excessive use of words in the Amendment. I made a note of some of the things he said "I am bound to say", "I repeat to the Postmaster-General". I do not think that those phrases are required. He acknowledged during his own speech that he was being repetitive, and it comes rather ill from the hon. Gentleman to complain of excessive words in the Amendment.

Mr. Onslow: I do not wish to enter into personalities, but, since the right hon. Gentleman has opened the door, may I point out to him that anybody who can put his name to the Amendment obviously needs to have everything explained

to him not once but two or three times if he is to have a glimmer of understanding of its meaning.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in the excessive use of words, and, therefore, I am sure that the House values his entering into the debate.
I am bound to say—if I may adopt the hon. Gentleman's phrase—that the Amendment is just about right. What we have to do in it is to achieve clarity, so that the future lawyers who exercise their minds on this form of words will understand exactly what it means. I believe that clarity is preferable to economy in the use of words.
Reference was made to the use of the word "it". May I explain to hon. Members opposite, who did not have the advantage of being under your tutorship in English at school, Mr. Speaker, that the "it" in line 3 of the Amendment and the "it" in line 4 clearly refer to the Post Office itself—

Hon. Members: There are two "its".

Mr. Stonehouse: The second "it" before "requisite", which was being complained about—

Mr. Ian Gilmour: It is the "it" before "appears" that we are worried about.

Mr. Stonehouse: I think that that is quite clear. That is required to explain the meaning. The Amendment says:
… it appears to it"—
the Post Office—
requisite, advantageous or convenient to do,…

Mr. Gilmour: It is clear, but it is extraordinarily bad language and totally illiterate.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not agree. It is clear. I repeat:
… to do anything that it appears to it"—
the Post Office—
requisite, advantageous or convenient to do,…
This is a concession to hon. Members opposite, who raised the point in Committee. It seems that their eyesight is defective when they cannot see a concession of this character when it is presented to them in the willing form that it is this afternoon.
May I explain it further to hon. Members opposite, who simply fail to understand? The main powers of the Post Office are set out in subsection (1). The powers in subsection (2) are subservient in a sense to those in subsection (1). It is not the intention that the Post Office should set out to invest in activities in subsection (2) unless they are part of the activities in subsection (1). The primary investment must be in the activities in subsection (1), and all the others are related to those powers.
There may be occasions—there will probably be many—when investments are made in relation to the main activities of the Post Office that become surplus to its requirements, and where it may be advantageous, convenient or expedient to the Post Office to use those surplus activities in a way other than in relation to its main activities set out in subsection (1), so as to ensure an adequate return on the investment. That is the reason the Amendment is worded in this way and why Amendment No. 33 put down with it, so that the Post Office may have the power in the future, according to sensible management decisions, to turn its resources to account in the way which is set out.
Any business has this flexibility. It sets out to do a certain line of business and it acquires certain marginal activities which service that main business. When those marginal activities are not required for, some reason, to service the main business, then it is within the power of the management to turn the marginal activities to account in other ways so that there shall be no brake on the attainment of the financial objectives of the firm.
All that we are suggesting in the Clause and the Amendment is that the Post Office should have similar powers. The Post Office will have very strict financial objectives set upon it, and it is important that without too much hindrance the management of the Post Office should be able to turn its business to account in this way.
The answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who raised objections to the words, is that it is essential that they be read in conjunction with the principal powers in subsection (1).

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As Amendment No. 25 has been selected, may we know the right hon. Gentleman's view on that Amendment and on the argument which I advanced?

Mr. Stonehouse: I have already said that I am in no way in a position supporting Amendment No. 25, which is superfluous. If accepted, it would be misleading. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) for absenting himself this afternoon and not moving that Amendment.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Alan Herbert, in a book, once wrote that it was the job of the other place to correct grammar. Will the Postmaster-General undertake to look at this "it" again? It is plain that in that line "that" is a relative "that", which means "which".
… to do anything which it appears to it requisite
is plainly illiterate. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at it again and at least make this Act of Parliament reasonably literate?

Mr. Peyton: May I support that plea? It is too bad that the Postmaster-General will not give that undertaking. It is quite a small point. It is the not-high-flown desire on this side of the House that we should remove ugliness from the Bill. We were aware of the heavy burdens of responsibility placed on the Chair, but until just now I had no idea that they had been added to in such a terrible way and that indirectly, Mr. Speaker, you have some responsibility for the English language as it is deployed by Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker was once an English master, but he does not intervene in debates of any kind in the House. He cannot be prayed in aid either for or against the wording on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Peyton: I did not wish to solicit your aid, Mr. Speaker, but I was extending my respectful sympathy to you, because after what the Postmaster-General said a certain amount of blame might be taken by uncharitable persons to rest upon yourself, which none of us would wish to see. While extending my sympathy to you, I was asking that the right hon. Gentleman should think again about this horrid piece of English.

Mr. Stonehouse: As always on these occasions, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was charming and delightful, as was his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). I willingly respond. I will, of course, look at this "it" again, and if it is superfluous

it can be removed. But I am advised that it is an important "it".

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 197; Noes 134.

Division No. 206.]
AYES
[4.24 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Orme, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas


Alldritt, Walter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Ashley, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Padley, Walter


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Paget, R. T.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hannan, William
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Park, Trevor


Barnes, Michael
Hazell, Bert
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Barnett, Joel
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pavitt, Laurence


Beaney, Alan
Henig, Stanley
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bence, Cyril
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoy, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, Adam
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Booth, Albert
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Boyden, James
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Probert, Arthur


Brooks, Edwin
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cant, R. B.
Kelley, Richard
Roebuck, Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Conlan, Bernard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Delargy, Hugh
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skeffington, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Macdonald, A. H.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Eadie, Alex
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Taverne, Dick


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Ennals, David
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Urwin, T. W.


Ensor, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu E. L. (Brigg)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, George


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Wellbeloved, James


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitaker, Ben


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fowler, Gerry
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)




Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
Winnick, David


Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan, (Cardiganshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Murray, Albert



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gregory, Arnold
Newens, Stan
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Dr. M. S. Miller.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, Albert E.





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nott, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peyton, John


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hooson, Emlyn
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stodart, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dean, Paul
Lubbock, Eric
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Drayson, G. B.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dennis


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper



Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Anthony Royle.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 8, leave out lines 5 to 11.

No. 33, in page 9, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert:
'and may turn its resources to account so far as not required for the purposes of its business'.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. Are you to put the Question on Amendment No. 25, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I think that it was the intention of the House and of the Minister that it should be resisted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Amendment No. 25 was not selected by Mr. Speaker for a Division. The House has just agreed to two Government Amendments and we now come to another.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 9, line 22, at end insert:

( ) The Post Office shall not be regarded as a common carrier in respect of any of its activities.
As the House knows, the Bill is intended to carry through to the Post Office Corporation the same powers and responsibilities which the Post Office, as a Department of State, now has. As a Department of State, the Post Office is not liable as a common carrier for all its activities. In other words, it cannot be sued for any loss arising out of its activities. Clause 29 specifically excludes this liability in relation to the corporation carrying out its primary responsibilities which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of that Clause.
However, a gap in the provision for the limitation of liability has come to light. That is when there are cases where the Post Office is obviously not at fault and where the loss is caused by an extraneous accident for which the Post Office is in no way responsible. I give as an illustration a plane crash when the


mail bags are destroyed, or a train crash when the mails are affected. Without the Amendment, the corporation could be held to be liable.
The Amendment is to make it clear that the corporation is not liable in such a case. It does no more than carry through to the corporation the existing limitation of liability enjoyed by the Post Office as a Department of State, and I hope that the House will find it acceptable.

Mr. John Hay: I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would tell us what he did not tell us—on what statutory foundation rests his claim that the Post Office at present is not a common carrier? I thought for a moment that he intended to tell us that, but he did not do so. We ought to have that information. I have it at the back of my mind that in respect of some of its services the Post Office may be regarded as a common carrier. I may be wrong and, if I am, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would correct me.
My second point is somewhat more important. The Amendment says that the Post Office is not to be regarded as a common carrier in respect of any of its services. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the carriage of parcels. He may not be aware that in the United States the definition of "common carrier" has been extended quite widely to telecommunications services, and a whole corpus of law has now arisen, with which the Federal Communications Commission and other bodies are very much concerned, as to the applicability of common carrier liabilities to the various services—operated in that country, of course, by private enterprise—for the transmission of data and information by wire.
The Amendment would exclude the Post Office completely from any liability not only in respect of the loss of packets, but, assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is right and that it simply carries into the new era the existing non-liability of the Post Office, any possibility of the corporation being liable to provide on demand telecommunications services of the character already existing in the United States.
I do not know whether the point has been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's

attention. If not, perhaps he could look at it and consider whether some limitation of this very wide exemption is necessary in these circumstances.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I had intended to ask a question similar to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). Is it clear that with the addition of this Amendment the powers of the corporation will be no greater than the powers of the Post Office? Clause 29 makes the new corporation completely free from proceedings in tort in respect of its telecommunications services. The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly spoken about the problems that can arise when a telephone service is disconnected, not as a result of any action by the Post Office, but by a third party. I am thinking of normal road operations, foundations being dug, etc. A person in business could be damaged to a large extent if he loses his telephone communication system.
We know that, like the old G.P.O., the new corporation will pull all the stops out to make certain that the service is resumed at the earliest possible moment. Under the Amendment, the person who had suffered through the loss of his telephone communications, and perhaps telex and data transmission, would be unable to sue the person responsible for the loss of his service because it is not possible to sue the corporation. It might be proved that the damage was caused by some third party, and that the corporation was in no way to blame, but by being able to be sued in the first place it would enable a person to obtain damages from a third party.
As I see it, there would be no possibility of this happening and the damaged person would be unable to recover one penny. Clause 29 virtually covers all telecommunications matters which could be considered to lie within the scope of the G.P.O. This Amendment deals with the occasions on which a service may be discontinued or interrupted through the action of a third party. Is it not possible to find a way in which an individual, perhaps a partner in a small company, who suffers from a loss of his communication services can recover damages?

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The Postmaster-General's explanation, which lasted about 60 seconds, does not do justice to this Amendment. It gives very wide powers to the corporation, as compared with perhaps B.O.A.C., which is a carrier of Her Majesty's mail, but in that case there is an element of competition. Here there is no competition and we need a more detailed explanation about how the public will be protected. This is a monopoly situation which is different from that arising with one of the nationalised industries. I am not at all satisfied that the interests of the public are being served from what I have heard.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We realise that the obligations of a common carrier are not imposed upon a Government Department, although it does not necessarily follow that such an obligation should not be imposed upon the Post Office. It is worth pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman is always anxious to gain all the rights of a monopoly, but when it comes to the duties he is almost equally anxious to escape them. Because we are approaching this Amendment in the same large-minded spirit of generosity as we have approached other parts of the Bill we will not press this Amendment to a Division but we look forward to an additional explanation.

Mr. Stonehouse: If I may reply, by leave of the House, by the provisions of Clause 29 the Post Office has always been excluded from liability for proceedings in tort, as distinct from protecting itself by individual contracts with members of the public with whom it is contact. It is possible for private companies, when they engage in business, to enter into a contract limiting the extent of their liability. With the Post Office, as it is providing a whole range of activities to a wide range of customers, it is necessary to exclude the liability in tort in the way suggested.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) asked what was the basis of the Post Offices limitation of liability to which I referred. I am advised that it is based on a case decided in the courts, dating back to the 18th century, Whitfield v. Lord Le Despenser. There was also a recent case, Triefus v. Postmaster-General, decided by the Court of Appeal,

when a B.O.A C. employee stole a packet of diamonds, and the owner sued the Postmaster-General unsuccessfully. Section 9 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, would also give the Post Office this exemption.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will go on to tell us what happened to the owner of the diamonds? Was he recompensed by B.O.A.C. or anyone else?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not have the details of this case at my fingertips. The Post Office was not held to be liable. It was given exemption from liability It is this exemption which is to be passed on to the Post Office Corporation.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) raised a number of points which, strictly speaking, related to Amendment No. 98 to Clause 29. It would be more appropriate if we dealt with those points on that Amendment. I hope that the House will see fit to support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 9, line 42, leave out 'social'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can take, at the same time, Amendments No. 41, in page 9, line 43, leave out from 'Islands' to 'and' in line 44.
No. 42, in page 9, line 43, after 'Islands', insert:
'and the social, industrial and civic needs of its employees'.
and No. 43, in page 10, line 10, at end insert:
(d) to the resources available to it and the existence of alternative facilities.

Mr. Ridley: I wish to move the Amendment very briefly and in an exploratory tone. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I am not able to stay for the whole of the debate, because I have a very important engagement shortly.
The Amendment deals with the general duty of the Post Office. It seeks to leave out the social needs of the British islands and to concentrate the duty of the Post Office on the industrial and commercial needs. It is not that I do not want the Post Office to discharge all sorts of useful social functions, but it should not be its general duty to discharge them. They


should be the responsibility of the Government Department or other body which wishes these functions to be performed and they should be paid for by that other Department or body. It would be right to read the Amendment with other Amendments relating to the general financial duty of the Post Office.
It would make the lives of those who run the Post Office much simpler and more straightforward if they were told that they had to behave commercially and to make as much money as they could, against price regulation, and provide social facilities only when it was expressly required to do so and was adequately compensated for doing so.
The Postmaster-General was forth-coming about this matter on 5th May. He listed a number of uneconomic activities—the telegram service, the delivery of posts in remoter areas of Wales and Scotland, the provision of kiosks, the delivery of items for the blind and the 999 emergency service. I do not say that these services should not be performed, but the relevant question is whether it is the Post Office's duty to provide for them out of its own resources. They should all be provided by those who require them to be provided.
The telegram service should be paid for by the Government. It does not pay. Why should people who post letters and people who use the telephone have to pay for the telegram service? The delivery of letters to remoter areas is a true charge. The delivery of letters is probably a true charge. The delivery of items for the blind is certainly not a true charge on customers in general. This should be the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security, or whatever Ministry is responsible.
The same is true of the 999 service. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) suggested, it should be paid for by the police, fire or ambulance authorities, or all three in concert.
We have decided that customers for the supply of electricity and letters and matters of that sort should pay the same price. That is a correct economic decision. But I do not believe that the principle should go so far as to say that the generality of customers of the Post Office should pay for the uneconomic activities which the Government require it to perform.
Amendment No. 42 suggests that the needs of the employees of the Post Office should form part of its general duties. I do not agree. We must clarify the objectives of the people running the Post Office. We should tell them that they must provide postal and telecommunications services as efficiently as they can and make as much money as they can and then all these difficult conflicts of interest will be brought into focus.
The speech of the Postmaster-General the other night was, broadly, sympathetic and helpful from the general point of view of payment. However, valid criticism was made of the Post Office's costings in the Economist, which said:
… while there is no shortage of figures … most of them are meaningless. It calcultates the costs of its various activities, and subsequently sets its tariffs, using a system which allocates some of its overheads quite arbitrarily and, at the best, pro rata.
We must have absolutely clear and concise costings of all these uneconomic activities, including its overheads, contributions to peak load, and so on, so that we know what they cost.
It would be wrong to include social needs in the general duty of the Post Office. They would be better reserved for later Clauses dealing with the Minister's power to ask it to undertake uneconomic activities. The main duties of the Post Office should be confined to commercial and industrial needs of the British islands, with the Minister having power to require it to deal with social considerations at a later stage.

Mr. James Dempsey: I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that his Amendment was exploratory. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will treat it in that fashion. If social needs were eliminated, a tremendous catastrophe would be created in many parts of the country in the delivery of very important mail. If the cost were charged to different Government Departments it would be catastrophic for the administrative machine in trying to allocate Departments which should pay the charge.
I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the serious problem of delivering mail in certain parts of the country and especially in the remoter areas. I have watched how the mail was delivered in


parts of Scotland. The mail of the people who live there is every bit as important to them as the mail of those who live in the industrial belts or urban parts of the United Kingdom is to them. It is conceivable that if the Amendment were to go beyond the exploratory stage great confusion could result about whether mail would be delivered.
In the areas which I have in mind a postman delivers along a certain part of the route, a bus operator takes it for the remainder of the journey and the shopkeeper disposes of it thereafter. This is what is involved in delivering important letters to citizens who pay taxes and rates and make their contribution to the well-being of our society. I should be very concerned if any practice was introduced which inconvenienced people living in these remote areas in the delivery of their mail.
To allocate services to certain Government Departments would be tremendously difficult administratively. A tremendously costly administrative machine would be required to sort out the different categories of mail and services and to decide which Department should pay for them so as to ensure that the service was a viable economic unit.
5.0 p.m.
I do not regard the Amendment as practical. It would certainly mean considerable delay in deliveries, because it would require the departmentalising of postal deliveries in such a fashion that all the economic services would require to be specially registered and documented to ensure that the appropriate items were charged to social security, the walfare services, the hospital services, the police and the fire services. This would create additional cost in managing an essential consumer service.
It would be bound to mean an increase in public expenditure—and that is something which the Opposition have all along criticised. They want a reduction in public expenditure. It would be bound to result in an increase in the number of civil servants—but for the past two years the Opposition have been calling for a reduction in their numbers. Therefore, in this respect, the Amendment is not a practical proposition.
I should not like to try to guess what would happen if the Coal Board deficit, for example, had had to be charged to all the different Departments of Government which are responsible for the different aspects of citizenship. There would be bound to be extra cost, delay and impairment of essential services for the public. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment

Mr. Peter Emery: I have so far refrained from intervening in the debate on Report or on Second Reading, but I wish particularly to make two points which hang on Amendments Nos. 40 and 43. Following the speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), I should like to know whether the Minister can at this stage give any direct information on the cost of operating some—perhaps not all—of the social services which are run by the Post Office.
In any proper cost and works accountancy study, some of these costs would obviously have had to be broken down. In any correct management structure, it would be of importance for the Minister or his Department to be able to give the figures of the extent to which the Post Office helps to subsidise certain of the social costs which have been outlined in this debate. It would be of use to the House and to the country generally if the Minister could give some of those figures. I do not believe that anybody, whether or not he agreed with the Amendment, could claim other than that it was correct that we should have a proper costing of the social services which the Post Office provides.
To turn to the aspect of the duties, whether the social cost should or should not be deleted and the "alternative facilities" referred to in Amendment No. 43, it is important to stress to the Minister the need for providing commercial judgment in the services, particularly in the case of the more far-flung areas. I should like to discuss as an example the problems which parts of the South-West have to suffer. From personal experience, I find that even the Postmaster-General's new 5d. mail takes as much as three days to reach me here at the House of Commons. That cannot be good for any commercial approach. It is certainly no


social service on the part of the Post Office.
The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to investigate a number of these problems about which I have been on to him time and time again concerning the absolute delays in the service of the Post Office. Certainly, from a management consultant point of view, it does not appear to provide the necessary efficiency when mail from Axminster has to be transported 33 miles to Exeter, the local mail sorted there and then sent back again. There has been no reduction of the sorting staff at Axminster. This would appear not to be the best element of management which many of us would like to see.
I cannot believe that it has anything to do with the social aspect. Indeed, people in my area complain that whereas formerly local mail which was posted in the morning would be delivered the same afternoon, a 4d. letter now takes as long as three days to go to the next village. This is a crazy aspect of the type of duty and service which the Post Office is now providing.
Another specific point to the Postmaster-General is whether, under the industrial structure, a service should not be provided by the Post Office, not at an exorbitant level, which would guarantee delivery within 24 hours. That is what industry wants and what commercial undertakings require. It has a particular social aspect. It seems to me to be something which the Postmaster-General should attempt to undertake among the general duties of the Post Office. It is important that he should apply his mind to this.
What I have to say applies not only to the postal services but relates also to the telephone service. There are a specific number of problems in connection with the social needs of the telephone service. In Exmouth, for example, where elderly, retired people, often live alone and can produce a doctor's certificate to show that they suffer from serious illness, people are unable to obtain the necessary telephone service which they require. In Exmouth, with its population of about 22,000 people, there are 100, including some major cases of illness, who are awaiting the telephone service.
I should like to put it to the Postmaster-General as part of the aspect of Amendment No. 43 that it may well be that the Post Office should consider, as well as the social structure, the specific industrial and commercial problems of firms which are unable to get a telephone linked to their business. Under the Amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will probably have noticed my anxiety about his earlier remarks on the postal services. I think that he is now going out of order in his remarks on the telephone service. They are out of order even on Amendment No. 43.

Mr. Emery: As you will know only too well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the last thing I want to do is to be out of order.
The effect of Amendment No. 43 is that
In discharging the duty imposed on it … the Post Office shall have regard … to the resources available to it and the existence of alternative facilities.
My problem is that there are no alternative facilities to the telephone service. The Amendment covers both postal and telephone services.
It is because no alternative resources are available that I was trying to put to the Postmaster-General—and I hope that I am now in order in doing so—the thought that commercial firms are particularly perturbed if, when they move into an area, they are unable to have a telephone service for sometimes as long as a year.
Quite obviously, in running any type of business it is a major drawback not to have a telephone and a telephone number; it is not only difficult, but well-nigh impossible. The Department ought to consider that this service ought to be available at a specific premium, a specific charge, not at the ordinary connection rate. The point is to ensure that the resources which are available should go to the people who have considerable need of them. A waiting list does not necessarily ensure that the resources which are available are used in the proper manner.
It is for that reason specifically that I wanted to ask the Minister whether there is any possibility of his considering the priority aspect of the problem. What I have been trying to say in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester


and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who moved the Amendment so ably, is that with the factors of social cost there are a number of other problems as well, and that they are of major importance to individuals. These resources and facilities of the Post Office are of the type which are of importance to them in their everyday lives, and of importance, in some instances, to their business existence.
Therefore, it seems to me that, in answering the case for these Amendments, the Minister has a major task to make it absolutely clear that he has his priorities right, and it seems to me that it was a most sensible thing to have moved this Amendment.

Sir Douglas Glover: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) ought to be congratulated on his Amendment No. 40. He said it was a probing Amendment. I should like to expand on some of the things he said.
To start with, funnily enough Clause 9 setts out in the reverse alphabetical order the needs which the Post Office has to meet. It puts them as the "social, industrial and commercial" needs, whereas, bearing in mind the rôle of the Post Office, one would suppose they would be the "commercial, industrial and social" needs. As usual with this Bill, the wording seems to me to be the wrong way round.
The first question I want to deal with is that of telegrams. Telegrams have always been looked upon as things which people use in times of emergency, and the Postmaster-General from time to time comes to the Box and says that, although the telegram service loses a lot of money, it cannot be done away with, or cannot be put up in price, because telegrams are used in times of crisis. I have known that to happen many times, since I have been a Member, and we have debated this a number of times. It is always where we try to run such a service as a social and not as a commercial operation that we get into difficulties. I should like the Postmaster-General to deny the accuracy of what I am saying, but I understand that telegrams today cost much more than they bring in and that the telegram service is run at a great loss.
Anybody who is in sudden difficulty, or suffers a loss in his family, and so on, wants to send a telegram, but almost invariably learns that it will not be delivered before first post next morning. It seems that deaths mostly occur at very awkward times of day; unless death occurs in the very early part of the day, in which case the telegrams may be delivered that afternoon, almost invariably the telegram will not be delivered before next morning. The great bulk of telegrams are not delivered till the next day. If, when one telephones a telegram, one asks the telephone operator when it will be delivered one will be told, "About first post tomorrow morning".
I am not criticising the Post Office for this, but now, because of the vast expansion of the S.T.D., most people in times of crisis use the telephone. If the matter is sufficiently urgent they will even ring up the local police station. They would rather do that because of the time it takes to deliver a telegram. The old argument that in times of crisis people use telegrams no longer really applies. S.T.D. serves the purpose much better than the telegram. The Post Office issues a vast number of greetings telegrams, and so itself demonstrates the fact that today it is for greetings telegrams are used.
5.15 p.m.
I cannot for the life of me see why, if I am sending a greetings telegram to someone on his wedding anniversary or his birthday or because of the birth of a child, I should be subsidised by the rest of the community. I think I ought to pay the full market rate for that telegram.
There is a difficulty in charging for things like dialling 999. It might cost far more to administer a system of charges for 999 calls than to give the public that service without charge, and therefore I would not criticise that, but what I would criticise is the cost to the Post Office of carrying out services on behalf of other Government Departments. I ask the Postmaster-General to come much cleaner with the House than I have known him be so far about what is the actual cost of the services which the Post Office carries out on behalf of other Departments. I know that some ad hoc figures are given, but has the Post Office really costed out those services on a cost-effectiveness basis?
If a post office were run purely for postal services, with none of the social activities attached, it would probably be able to handle the whole of the service at two pigeonholes—"stations" I think they are called. Perhaps the Postmaster-General could help me? Are they called "stations"—where a clerk stands behind the counter? I think they are called stations. Because of the amount of welfare and social work, a post office has to have perhaps four stations, and allowing for staff time off, perhaps five, whereas for ordinary postal activities only two would be necessary.
Before this part of our national life is handed over to a Corporation which will not be nearly so available for questioning in the House as it has been under the present dispensation I should like to have a real assurance from the Postmaster-General that this Corporation, in taking on the social activities—and I am not objecting to them in any way—will be paid commercial rates for the services it carries out, so that people sending letters or using the telephone or using other of the services are not subsidising other Government Departments, and so that the Government Departments are not getting these services on the cheap. We ought to have a much clearer picture from the Postmaster-General of what all these cost.
That is why I support my hon. Friend's probing Amendment, because it gives the Postmaster-General the opportunity to tell us something about these problems.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: All Government Departments should have regard to social needs, especially a Government Department which has a monopoly. This goes almost without saying. If the population of the United Kingdom were evenly distributed and were of a standard type, perhaps urban dwellers, it would not be necessary to have a lengthy debate on the use of these words.
Reference has been made to the remoter areas of Scotland, and I will illustrate my remarks by reference to Islay, an island which lies off the West Coast of Scotland. I congratulate the Post Office on being one Department in the structure of Government which has always said to remote dwellers, "Congratulations on living in a remote place; we will provide you with the same service at the same

cost, even if the service costs more". This has always been done by the Post Office, and that is why the Post Office and its employees in remote areas are so popular. They fulfil an extraordinary variety of extramural activities, which the Postmaster-General's public relations office would be pleased to call a friendly service, even though it may get a little less friendly in the cities. If other Government Departments took the same attitude and did not punish people for choosing to live in remote areas, it may be that the depopulation problems of Scotland would not be so severe.
I should like to consider the word "social" in a slightly different way. I agree that the word should be retained but I question whether, although perhaps with the best motives—I am willing to be generous about motivation—centralised thinking and expenditure on possible improvements will result in satisfying social need.
I am sad that the Postmaster-General is bowing off the stage and that I shall not in future be able to ask him Parliamentary Questions, but I ask him to bear in mind the illustration which I give of the island of Islay. This is a charming island which likes to be visited, it is famous for its friendliness and is sometimes called the "Land of the Midnight Ceilidhs".
The telephone exchange in Islay provides the most friendly service of the United Kingdom. The inexorable march of centralised planning has interfered with this service and, instead of the charming white-fronted small telephone exchange, where Ishbel performs thousands of extramural acts of assistance to the people who live there and to the visitors, a hideous modern building is being erected behind the present telephone exchange at a cost which is likely to be many times that of the present one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding difficulty in seeing how the hon. Lady is relating her remarks to any Amendment on the Paper.

Mrs. Ewing: I do not think you will have difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will bear with me for a few further paragraphs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order The hon. Lady has already put in a few shots that were not in the proper locker.

Mrs. Ewing: I am addressing myself specifically to the word "social" and the need for that word to remain in the Bill. I am giving an illustration of the best application of the word, an application which has not so far been heard in this debate. The fact that I am doing this by a helpful illustration does not, in my submission, make my remarks irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Lady with great care. I hope that she will get on with her argument so that I shall be able to find out whether it is in order.

Mrs. Ewing: I am giving the illustration so that I may draw conclusions, and I feel confident that when you have heard the argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that it is absolutely relevant.
In spite of technological progress, there are still social needs, and I want to interpret social needs in the sense of serving the community. Clause 9(2) refers to the desirability of improving and developing the operating systems of the Post Office, and to developments in the field of communications. The development of communications in an island involves special problems not involved in a city. There are fringe benefits in Islay. If cows invade the garden one does not have to know the owner of them, one only has to ask Ishbel, and she will know the telephone number.
I will now turn to serious matters of emergency. The doctor in Islay is hard worked and indispensable and at present he can always be found. Doctors are entitled to time off and sometimes go fishing or out to dinner; but will a mechanised system understand this? Ishbel understands it and can always find the doctor without difficulty, even of he is on another island.
The aeroplane is the life-blood of the island and the operators are prepared to make extra journeys in emergencies. I am sorry that the Postmaster-General is not interested in Islay. I recommend it to him; it would do him good to go there to see it for himself; he might then appreciate some of the problems of remote areas. Ishbel can always find the plane operators, who are on duty 24 hours a day. Will the mechanised service which is to replace the friendly service do this?
I am interested in social needs, but I question whether leaving the words "social needs" in the Bill will solve the problem, unless we understand that social needs have to be interpreted as referring to specific areas with special requirements. How will a mechanised service be a friend to old people in remote areas? I am making the point in all seriousness, although I may have brought in colourful examples. I am not attempting to be frivolous. I urge the Postmaster-General to bear in mind that the spending of more money on so-called improvements may not result in social needs being met.
The two-tier post has sometimes worked out with great absurdity. People in the islands are usually patient about the delivery of letters, and delays give rise to great good humour and many funny stories, but it is not sensible to apply the two-tier service to the islands of Scotland.
The Post Office has been brought into great good humoured ridicule, although the people's affection for the Post Office is no less great. I question whether the two-tier system has any application whatsoever to the social needs of the island.
I support the Postmaster-General in retaining the word "social" in the Clause, with these reservations as to its interpretation. When he has bowed off the stage and the Treasury is waiting in the wings as the power behind the scenes, I am concerned whether we shall be able to ask questions on the day-to-day interpretation of important words like "social".

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: It is nearly three years since some of us began our studies of the Post Office Bill, and during the whole of that time the telegraph service has stuck out like a sore thumb.
During this agreeable debate we have had one or two enjoyable constituency speeches, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) on the ingenuity with which they have brought the needs of their constituents to the attention of the House without infringing the rules of order. This is, indeed, an achievement.
I turn to the words of the Amendment and particularly to the connotation mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It is perhaps no coincidence that he and I sat together on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and in Committee on this Bill, so the telegraph system means to us something different from what it means to those who have later come in on these matters.
5.30 p.m.
The telegraph service is excused as meeting a social need, but one knows that the urgent, social-need telegram is free to the sender. Examples were given during the Committee stage. Urgent telegrams sent by the police are free to them. I doubt whether the telegraph service really meets an urgent social need.
The service exists primarily for the use of the Press and secondly for bookmakers. If one attacks in this House either the Press or the bookmakers, one takes one's life in one's hands. Therefore, I understand the Postmaster-General's reticence. Certainly the Press is the main user of the telegram service, with the bookmakers second, although bookmakers now use the telephone kiosk to a greater extent.
There is a lack of interest in the telegraph service, and when one see the word "social" in Clause 9 of the Bill, it leads one to ask whether there is any such requirement. It does not meet any commercial requirement at present, but it is excused as meeting a social requirement. Greetings telegrams which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and which we so much enjoy, do not meet any particularly urgent social need.
If we delete the word "social", we shall have to look again at the whole matter of the telegraph service. We must ask ourselves whether the main users of it, the Press, would be prepared to pay the cost of retaining it. I believe that we shall receive varying answers.
In regard to the other matters which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I remember from my stamp-collecting days that the penny post came in in 1840, with the principle of one rate for postage, whether a letter went from

Lands End to John O'Groats or from the House of Commons to the Ministry of Health. It is a sensible principle for which we should be unwise to depart.
The provision of the telephone kiosk is a constant drain on the Post Office, and the policy as to the necessity for kiosks needs to be carefully examined area by area. I do not wish to make a constituency speech, but there are areas in my constituency where telephone kiosks are required because of shortage of private telephones. But I am also certain that vast numbers of kiosks are a liability on the Post Office and could be dispensed with.
One remembers the great indignation which was aroused when kiosk charges went up to 6d., but there has since been no backlash from that. The whole policy needs to be examined. Kiosks in other countries do not lose money as they do in this country. Perhaps telephone kiosks could be provided in some sort of premises so that there could be supervision of users.
The present practice is that bookmakers allow callers to reverse charges when placing their bets. The caller, who may be a collector of bets, may spend up to half an hour in a kiosk, as I have found to my cost on the occasions when I have waited for such a person to finish his call. Such a person will not be affected by any action we take today.
I wish to put two points to the Postmaster-General: first, that the telegraph service ought not to be continued on its present basis because the social need which it serves is minimal, if it has not disappeared altogether; secondly, that the policy on telephone kiosks is weak and it is high time that it was tightened up. For these reasons I am glad that this Amendment has been moved, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful for the manner in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) moved the Amendment. He indicated that it was a probing Amendment and that he did not intend to force a Division.
He referred to the proceedings in Standing Committee on 27th February, when I gave details of the uneconomic services for which the Post Office is now


responsible. During this debate a number of hon. Members have argued for and against the Post Office undertaking these social and uneconomic services in the future.
Since the Post Office has public monopoly responsibilities, it must follow that there are some activities which are marginally uneconomic but which in the light of its monopoly responsibility it may wish to continue. What unites both sides of the House is that these activities should be identified, not only to members of the public, but also to Post Office executives, so that the activities do not creep in as a form of inefficient activity which is a brake on the achievement of a fully-effective efficiency in the operation of the main bulk of the business.
We have been conscious of the need to identify uneconomic services. Some publicity has been given to this matter, and I will give some details to the House. In the postal section, for instance, redirection of mail loses £0·6 million a year. The concession to newspapers posted by publishers, which receive first-class service at second-class rates, costs £1·1 million per year. The transmission of articles for the blind, for example, books in Braille, to which reference has already been made, costs the Post Office £0·7 million a year.
Delivery of mail to remoter areas of the country has been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). I was grateful to her for what she said, and I hope that I will have an opportunity to visit the delightful island to which she referred in her speech. The loss on the services on these remote deliveries is estimated to be £15 million a year.
It is a fine philosophical point as to who is subsidising this particular service. Since most of the mail originates in the towns and it is the poster who pays the postage, it could be considered that this is a subsidy to the poster in the towns rather than to the recipient in the village. I believe that the House generally does not wish the principle of a common postal charge, which was introduced by Rowland Hill in 1840, to be in any way invaded. We are jealous of that principle and we wish it to continue.
Reference has been made to the uneconomic telegram service, which involves a loss of £2·6 million a year. I was grateful for the observations made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). I believe that they may have a valid point when they say that the telegram service does not perform the same sort of service which it performed years ago, in view of the other services which are now available, particularly the S.T.D. telephone service.
It is true that the majority of telegrams sent nowadays are of the greetings-type, and the number which is of a life-and-death variety is very small indeed in the total sent.
It may become necessary in time for us to examine the possibility of substituting a life and death service for urgent communications rather than to maintain the telegram service in its existing form at a cost of £2·6 million, which is a burden on the rest of the users of the Post Office services. We must also bear in mind the social services provided by the Post Office; for example, the free 999 service which costs £½ million and which is willingly accepted by the Post Office.
I understand that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has no intention of pressing the Amendment to a Division. It is important that the Post Office should have a discretion to continue certain uneconomic services as a social duty. However, it is the intention of the Post Office to identify the services which involve such a loss and, where appropriate, to arrange for other Government Departments to pay an economic cost when the Post Office is directed to carry on a service which other Departments require. For example, in the social security payments sphere the Post Office bears the cost of making payments but receives a payment back towards its overall financial objective. This is a comparatively new development which is fully in the context of the Post Office becoming a commercial organisation and meeting its financial objectives.
This has been a useful debate which has identified an important area of the social responsibility of the Post Office. Both sides of the House are united in wishing these activities to be identified


so that they should not become a brake on the general commercial viability of the Post Office.

Amendment negatived.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 44 in page 10, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
This subsection says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing upon the Post Office, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court
In a country which is always preaching the rule of law to others, I do not like to see provisions of this kind, because a duty, not only on private citizens but on mammoth corporations, should be capable of enforcement in the courts. For this reason this provision goes intolerably wide and seems to cover any act or omission. It says:
Nothing … shall be construed as imposing … either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable … before any court.
The duties stated earlier in the Clause are cagily worded while the exclusions and safeguards are extremely wide. Indeed, the duties are hardly defined at all. In subsection (1) the Post Office is called on
… so to exercise its powers as to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British islands in regard to matters that are subserved by those powers and, in particular, to provide throughout those Islands (save in so far as the provision thereof is, in its opinion, impracticable or not reasonably practicable such services … as satisfy all reasonable demands for them.
I do not know why the words "not reasonably practicable" have been added, because the phrase
… (save in so far as the provision thereof is, in its opinion, impracticable …
would seem sufficient. The Clause continues in equally vague terms when, in subsection (2), it is said:
In discharging the duty imposed on it by the foregoing subsection, the Post Office shall have regard—

(a) to the desirability of improving and developing its operating systems;
(b) to developments in the field of communications; and
(c) to efficiency and economy."

I will not go in detail into the root cause of our objection to the Bill as a whole, but the Clause bears on our main objection,

which is the wholesale control by one monopoly of this vastly important and significantly developing industry of communications.
It is in this connection that I am anxious about there being no reference to the Post Office having a specific duty to do research. There is simply the reference in subsection (2)(a) to
… the desirability of improving and developing its operating systems …
that is so vague as to be unenforceable.
Subsection (3) goes far too wide when it says:
Subsection (1) above shall not be taken to preclude the Post Office from interrupting, suspending or restricting, in case of emergency, any service provided by it.
Thus, we not only have vaguely stated duties set out in subsections (1) and (2) but, later, powerful safeguards which relieve the Post Office of any responsibility which is
… in its opinion, impracticable or not reasonably practicable) …
Subsection (4), following those vague duties and wide safeguards, is offensive because it goes far too wide.
Those safeguards, wide as they are, must be taken against the background of powers so wide and general as to make it very hard to contemplate circumstances in which anyone could bring an action. Imagine the difficulty in seeking a mandatory injunction against the Post Office to carry out its social duties. It would put a burden on the court of defining what was its social duty, let alone its commercial and industrial duty as well.
Subsection (4) is offensive. It will be taken as a valuable precedent for excluding the jurisdiction of the court from nationalised corporations of this kind. I do not like seeing such things lightly put into Statutes, because they are always taken as an excuse for repeating the offence on other occasions.
I do not want to prolong my argument. I hope that those of my hon. Friends adorning the Front Bench will recollect, when in the near future they are sitting on the Front Bench opposite, that provisions like this cannot be permitted indefinitely to remain on the Statute Book. I am sufficiently aware that opinions change when gallant and unsullied characters move over to the Treasury Bench, but I hope that they will realise that, to some


of us at any rate, such provisions are objectionable and must be removed at the earliest possible opportunity.
It will not be adequate for them to state that they will not use those powers, because the duty imposed upon the Post Office by the Clause and by the Bill is one which has an exclusive effect. It gives wide monopoly powers and substitutes the dull lethargy of a single corporation for the widespread initiatives and endeavours of a highly competitive industry.
Because I have a high opinion of the intelligence and acumen of my hon. Friends I have no doubt that when they accept the sense of the Amendment they will probably advise that we should divide the House if the Government's reaction is unsatisfactory. That being the case, I hope it will be taken by my hon. Friends as a clear commitment on behalf of the Conservative Party, that, when it gets into office, it will remedy some at least of these abominations.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): I have a certain affection for the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I have watched him over the years and observed him when in Government. He said that we are living in a free country and he does not like to see such words as these in a Bill. He suggests that the Clause is very wide and goes too far. He also mentioned monopoly.
I remember the hon. Gentleman, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, speaking for a similar Clause on mining matters when I was on the other side of the House.
The hon. Gentleman says that subsection (4) is offensive, and he seeks to advise his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that when they move over to this side of the House, they should not do what we are seeking to do at this juncture. I have followed with interest what he said. But there is nothing unusual about the subsection. For example, it is similar to Section 3(4) of the Transport Act, 1962, which was passed by a Conservative Government.
It may help if I explain the thinking behind the Clause. The obligations in the Clause—

Mr. Peyton: I must take the opportunity to explain to the hon. Gentleman,

as I have done to other Ministers, that I always regard the argument that such a thing was done once by a Tory Government as a bad one. I am conscious that Tory Governments have made mistakes. I wish that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would be equally conscious of the Niagara of errors for which they are currently responsible.

Mr. Slater: It seems strange to me, knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, that he should get up and begin to apologise for things done by the Government of which he was a member.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman must not misconstrue what I am saying. I am conscious that all Governments make their share of errors—this one more than most. If a Conservative Government put into Acts things which I find offensive, which alas they did, I regret it. I only wish that Ministers would bring themselves to employ about their own errors that candour which was once extolled as a virtue by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Slater: I said that I had affection for the hon. Gentleman and I should not like to upset him. I was reminding him of something that happened on an earlier occasion. What we are seeking to put into the Bill is not new, because there was a similar provision in the Transport Act, 1962.
The obligations in the Clause are intended as statements of general principle which are to guide the Post Office in the way that it exercises its powers. The Clause is an expression in general terms of the statutory duty which may be imposed by Parliament upon the Post Office, just as other nationalisation Acts lay statutory duties on other nationalised authorities.
This does not, of course, detract from the force of the Clause. The remedy against any breach of this duty are the powers of the Minister as set out in the Bill. In the unlikely event of a breach by the Post Office of its obligations under Clause 9, the remedy would not be for some member of the public to sue, but for the Minister to give it a direction under Clause 11.
This is fully in accord with the basic conception of the Bill, which is that the Post Office will have a large degree of freedom, but will be subject to general


oversight by the Government. This is the pattern already followed in other nationalisation Acts. I cannot accept that Clause 9(4) is unreasonable. Therefore, having listened attentively to what the hon. Gentleman had to say—and I know how he feels about it—in view of what I have said, I ask him to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I did not feel that the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was fully satisfactory. I thought that his attempt to use the analogy of the Transport Act and the argument, "Do not forget what happened some years ago", when an entirely different sector of the economy was under discussion, was particularly weak.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) on an earlier Clause, said that this Government and the Post Office are always ready to take on the powers of monopoly, but are always reluctant to take on the responsibilities.
6.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to yet another point in respect of which this applies. Subsection (4) is objectionable in that it is unnecessarily wide. I shall not repeat the arguments put forward

by my hon. Friend, with which I agree, but at one point he asked whether a future Tory Government would remove this provision at the earliest possible opportunity. All I can say is that although I strongly support the Amendment, the wording of the Queen's Speech is not a matter for me. In our first year of government we shall have to do many things to put right what this lot have got wrong. This change will have to take its place in the queue.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: It would be possible for a future Tory Government to produce a very simple, one-Clause repeal Bill with a long Schedule.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Mills: That is an equally attractive thought, but we are now considering this Amendment to this Clause. We judge it on its merits. Is it right or wrong? Is it unnecessarily wide? I believe that we should join my hon. Friend in dividing the House and registering our objection to this subsection.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 215.

Division No. 207.]
AYES
[6.2 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Awdry, Daniel
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Balniel, Lord
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Jopling, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fisher, Nigel
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Foster, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Blaker, Peter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lambton, Viscount


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Braine, Bernard
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Lubbock, Eric


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Grant, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)



Grant-Ferris, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gresham Cooke, R.
McMaster, Stanley


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Carlisle, Mark
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Marten, Neil


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
Maude, Angus


Clegg, Walter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mawby, Ray


Cooke, Robert
Hill, J. E. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Corfield, F. V.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hordern, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Monro, Hector


Dean, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)




Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Pym, Francis
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tilney, John


Murton, Oscar
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt Hn. Sir John


Nott, John
Ridsdale, Julian
Waddington, David


Onslow, Cranley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Royle, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sharples, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Silvester, Frederick
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Percival, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Peyton, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Woodnutt, Mark


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wright, Esmond


Pink, R. Bonner
Speed, Keith



Pounder, Rafton
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stodart, Anthony
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Prior, J. M. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer





NOES


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Alldritt, Walter
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.
Mapp, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David


Barnes, Michael
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Barnett, Joel
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Beaney, Alan
Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, John


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Molloy, William


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boyden, James
Hamling, William
Murray, Albert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hannan, William
Neal, Harold


Brooks, Edwin
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stan


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oram, Albert E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orme, Stanley


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hooley, Frank
Oswald, Thomas


Cant, R. B.
Horner, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, James
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Park, Trevor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, John (Reading)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dickens, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rankin, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richard, Ivor


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ellis, John
Luard, Evan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Ennals, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roebuck, Roy


Ensor, David
McBride, Neil
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacDermot, Niall
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Sheldon, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
McGuire, Michael
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Finch, Harold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)







Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Skeffington, Arthur
Wallace, George
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Small, William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Winnick, David


Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, Robert


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitaker, Ben
Wyatt, Woodrow


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene



Taverne, Dick
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. John McCann and


Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Urwin, T. W.

Clause 11

GENERAL MINISTERIAL CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE POST OFFICE

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 11, line 16, after 'Minister', insert:
'or it is suggested to him by the Post Office Users National Council'.
This Clause relates to the powers of the Minister, and the Amendment relates to the way in which he might use them. It is an attempt to enlarge the functions of the discretion of the Post Office Users' National Council. We freely concede that many people have no faith in users' councils, and there may not be much point in them, but we believe that if such councils are to be they should not be honorific bodies but should have a genuine task to do.
In Committee, we introduced a number of Amendments in an attempt to enlarge the functions of these users' councils. We tried an Amendment on appointment. We tried to enlarge their functions, and we tried to take out the word "may" which, in spite of the direct support of the users' council, the right hon. Gentleman rejected. In fact, on all our Amendments he put the boot in badly and refused to allow the functions of the users' council to be extended. We hope that this attitude will not be taken by him this evening.
The difficulty of the Clause as it stands is that the prejudices of the Minister might well be the same as those of the Post Office and, therefore, undue discrimination might never be brought to the attention of the users' council. In this context, I should like to quote from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) who played a prominent part in our Committee deliberations. I know that he is not able to be here today. He said:

At one end of the spectrum, we see that the Postmaster-General, or the Minister under the new Bill, can keep a very close watch on the day-to-day affairs of the Post Office. I think that some Ministers will not do that, whereas other Ministers will have an opportunity to do it under the powers set out in the Clause. At the other end of the spectrum, we have a Minister who can sit back and take no decisions which materially affect the way in which the Post Office does its job. It is clear that, except in a few minor cases, he need not be involved in anything at all if he does not wish to become involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee D, 28th January, 1969; c. 494.]
The hon. Gentleman goes on to say that something should be done about it.
That sums up part of our case on this Amendment, that there may be a lethargic Minister, or a Minister whose whims and prejudices coincide exactly with those of the Post Office, and therefore the Minister does not supply an adequate safeguard to the users' council. This Amendment is very moderate, like all our other Amendments on this subject. The users' council would not be able to intervene merely because there was discrimination. It would have the power and initiative to intervene only if, in its view, there was undue discrimination.
Therefore, this is a very non-militant Amendment. It is merely an attempt in good faith to give some initiative to the users' council, and we hope that without a prolonged debate the right hon. Gentleman will accede to our Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I know how interested the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) and his colleagues were in Committee on the question of the users' council. I have listened with interest to what he has said this evening and I can understand why he and his hon. Friends feel that the words in the Amendment should be inserted into the Clause. It is clearly right that the users' council should be in a position to concern itself with cases where discrimination may occur. I agree that it is most


important that its powers to make recommendations to the Minister about such cases should be beyond doubt.
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no need to amend the Bill for this purpose, for under Clause 14(9)(a) the Post Office Users' Council has the duty of considering either matters on which representations are made to it or any matters having to do with the services which it feels should be considered. As the Bill stands, these duties definitely extend to suggestions about the exercise of the powers of the Minister in Clause 11(4).
Therefore, while I acknowledge the interest that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have taken in this matter, as the Bill stands, there is no need to add the words in the Amendment to enable the Council to do this sort of thing or to enable the Minister to act on its suggestion if he thinks fit. Accordingly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 11, line 16, after 'Office', insert:
is showing undue preference to, or'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 50, in page 11, line 17, after 'discrimination', insert 'in favour of or', and Amendment No. 51, in line 17, after 'against', insert 'or in favour of'.

Mr. Stonehouse: Hon. Members who attended the Standing Committee will remember that on 28th January the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) raised the question of the possibility of discrimination being shown, and he proposed that subsection (4) of this Clause should be deleted. I was unable to agree with his suggestion on that occasion, but I undertook to look at the wording in this subsection with a view to making a concession to his point of view.
After consideration, I have now introduced Amendment No. 49 to meet this substantive point which was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends. This would have the effect of inserting another reason for the Minister providing directions to the Post Office

after consultation, and I believe that it meets the points that have been raised. I hope the House will agree that these words are more suitable than the words proposed in Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, and that, therefore, my Amendment will meet with the general agreement of the House.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has taken the point which I made in Committee, and the words of his Amendment, although they do not precisely meet what I had in mind, go a long way towards it. We recognise that he has endeavoured to be helpful, and I hope that we shall accept his Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 55, in page 12, line 5, after 'year', insert:
'(which shall include such particulars as the Minister may, after consultation with the Post Office and with the approval of the Treasury, direct with respect to its activities and those of its subsidiaries so far as consisting in the construction, manufacture or production of articles in that year)'.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 12, line 6, at end insert:
(11) The report made under the last foregoing subsection for any year shall set out any directions given under this section by the Minister to the Post Office during that year, except such (if any) as were the subject of notifications under subsection (6) above.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that, at the same time, we look back to Amendment No. 52, in page 11, line 26, leave out subsection (6), which would do the same thing in another way.

Mr. Slater: In Committee, my right hon. Friend conceded the principle that the Post Office Corporation should publish any directions given to it other than those the publication of which would be against the interests of national security. That followed an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryant), supported by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). My right hon. Friend was unable to accept the precise wording of that Amendment, but we have considered how the principle involved should be reflected in the Bill.
We consider that the appropriate way to do it would be to add the new subsection set out in this Amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We agree that the Postmaster-General conceded the principle of our Amendment in Committee, and we agree, also, that the Government Amendment now before us is an attempt in good faith to meet the point which we made. Unfortunately, it does not, in our view, meet it because, although it provides that directives should be published, it provides only that they would be published at the end of the year.
It was an important point in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) in Committee that changes of policy should be known at the time. We consider that, if there is a row going on, a row, so to speak, beneficial to the public, between the Post Office and the Postmaster-General, the fact of that row should be made public. In that respect, therefore, the present Amendment does not do what we sought to achieve.
I agree that the provision in the Amendment that directives should be published at the end of the year does not preclude their publication at the time, but, unless we have an assurance that this is the intention behind the Amendment, we shall not consider that our wishes have been adequately met.

Mr. Joseph Slater: We said that we would give every consideration to the case presented by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) in Committee, and I pointed out at the time that on occasions when the Post Office was compelled by direction to do something which it could not be persuaded to do by other less formal means, it would wish to disclose at once that a direction had been given in order to make clear where responsibility for its actions lay. In other cases, when the Post Office received, for example, a direction under Clause 11(3) to comply with an international formality, it would again make it known straightaway for the benefit of all concerned. In practice, the giving of directions on major matters is more or less bound to be public knowledge at the time when they are given.
I think that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), and I hope that he now recognises that we have tried to meet his point.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the Assistant Postmaster-General, and I accept his Amendment as a big step forward. However, will he make clear—he could do it in one word—that there would be nothing to stop the Post Office, if it received a direction mid-term between reports, from making that knowledge public simply by telling the Press, by saying, for example, "We have received a direction to institute a postal service to X islands"? It could readily be done by such an announcement.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) that perfection would be to put the Post Office under a statutory duty to make announcements whenever it received a directive, but I think that the nationalised industries have not shown themselves coy in the past in announcing to the public whenever they have been ordered about. I hope that the Post Office will be no exception in this respect.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I give an assurance that there is nothing to stop the Post Office, if it feels so disposed, from saying that the Minister has requested it to do something.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

POWER OF THE MINISTER TO DIRECT THE POST OFFICE TO DO WORK FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 13, line 13, after first 'the', insert:
'independent accountants appointed by the'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take, at the same time, Amendment No. 58, in page 13, line 13, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Parliamentary Commissioner'.

Mr. Ridley: In Committee, we debated what should happen in the event of a dispute as to the amount of money to be paid to the Post Office for performing an uneconomic function. On that occasion, we proposed that the dispute should be adjudicated by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but that


suggestion was not acceptable to the Government. We have, therefore, now suggested that the Parliamentary Commissioner should appoint someone to go into the facts and figures to determine the correct amount of subsidy or compensation to be paid to the Corporation in return for performance of an uneconomic service or function.
This is a point of importance in relation to the whole development of nationalised industry policy. The Minister has rightly taken the point and done his best to apply commercial standards, and re-imbursement for departing from them, but if the person who is to decide the amount of compensation is to be the Minister himself, it will be much more difficult for the proper costs to be arrived at and for the Post Office to feel confident in any settlement which is made.
There are two possibilities and I take the example of the telegram system to illustrate them. Let us suppose that it was decided to compensate the Post Office for running the telegram system. It might ask for too big a profit so that it could make easy money out of the subsidy procedure, in which event the Government might well wish to appeal against the sum which the Post Office was demanding. Alternatively, as the Bill stands at present, the Minister could say, "I shall give you only £500,000", which would be far less than the actual loss which the Post Office thought that it was incurring. In either of those cases, it would be wrong if the Minister had the final say. He cannot be the true judge to determine the correct amount when he is the person responsible to Parliament for presenting a Vote for that amount.
Since our debate in Committee I have felt even more strongly that we should have an independent arbiter to decide the correct amount. We need somebody who can employ accountants to find out all the facts and figures, so that a really fair and true assessment can be made. I am sure that the Postmaster-General will regard the principle of the Amendment as sound, and agree that to leave it to the Minister to make the final decision would be unsound.
I do not know who would be the best person to do it. My hon. Friends have suggested the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is certainly impartial. He is

neither a servant of the Government nor somebody without status or position. He is a public servant who is not a servant of the Government, and, therefore, he seems a possible candidate. There are very few people who have public standing and, at the same time, are not servants of the Government.
Therefore, the Amendment is a useful vehicle to discuss the principle that the Minister should not be the arbiter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment, and to accept that somebody in a similar position to the Parliamentary Commissioner might well be the person to undertake the task.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has returned to a theme which was developed in Committee. It discloses a certain misunderstanding about the function of the Minister of Posts after the Post Office Corporation is set up. It is much more appropriate that the Minister and his staff should be responsible for settling any disputes that may arise, although it is most unlikely that there would be disputes of the character referred to.
The policy to be adopted for a publicly-owned industry cannot be considered in the same context as the policy for independent firms. With a publicly-owned authority of this character it is most appropriate that the Ministry of Posts should be the final decider in the case of a dispute about the various services the Post Office may be asked to carry on.
If we had independent accountants, as suggested in the Amendment, it would be a reflection on the overriding powers and responsibilities of the sponsoring Minister. If we have the Parliamentary Commissioner, as suggested in Amendment No. 58, a completely new concept of activity is introduced for the Commissioner, whose functions are strictly related to following up M.P.s' complaints about the actions of Ministers. It would detract from his main responsibility there to give him the responsibilities suggested in the Amendment.
I am not persuaded that there is any advantage in accepting either Amendment, and I ask the House to reject them.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of this debate. We have moved rather faster than I expected.
Judging from the way the Assistant Postmaster-General dealt with the matter in Committee, when he spoke of the problems of having the Comptroller and Auditor General as an independent arbiter, as we had suggested, I thought that he might look favourably at another independent person.
When he replied just now the Postmaster-General used a slightly different point as his main argument. However, this is not a matter on which we should divide, and with the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman who moved it will ask leave to withdraw.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 13, line 17, at end insert 'in Scotland'.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Clause 13

RESTRICTION OF MANUFACTURING POWERS OF THE POST OFFICE AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

Amendment proposed, No. 60, in page 13, line 29, leave out Clause 13.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 153.

Division No. 208.]
AYES
6.35 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dickens, James
Hunter, Adam


Alldritt, Walter
Dunnett, Jack
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Ashley, Jack
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ellis, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
English, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ennals, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Barnes, Michael
Ensor, David
Judd, Frank


Barnett, Joel
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard


Baxter, William
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lawson, George


Beaney, Alan
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bence, Cyril
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Bidwell, Sydney
Finch, Harold
Lee, John (Reading)


Binns, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blackburn, F.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lipton, Marcus


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ford, Ben
Loughlin, Charles


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Boyden, James
Fowler, Gerry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brooks, Edwin
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Freeson, Reginald
McBride, Neil


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gardner, Tony
MacColl, James


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Garrett, W. E.
MacDermot, Niall


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Macdonald, A. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McGuire, Michael


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Cant, R. B.
Gregory, Arnold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Conlan, Bernard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)



Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamling, William
Mapp, Charles


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Harper, Joseph
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henig, Stanley
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Delargy, Hugh
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Molloy, William


Dell, Edmund
Hooley, Frank
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dempsey, James
Horner, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dewar, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert




Neal, Harold
Rankin, John
Tuck, Raphael


Newens, Stan
Richard, Ivor
Urwin, T. W.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Eric G.


Oakes, Gordon
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ogden, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oram, Albert E.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wallace, George


Orbach, Maurice
Roebuck, Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Orme, Stanley
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Oswald, Thomas
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wellbeloved, James


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Rowlands, E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Padley, Walter
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Sheldon, Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Paget, R. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Whitlock, William


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilkins, W. A.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Park, Trevor
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pavitt, Laurence
Silverman, Julius
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Skeffington, Arthur
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Slater, Joseph
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pentland, Norman
Small, William
Winnick, David


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Woof, Robert


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Taverne, Dick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. John McCann and


Probert, Arthur
Tomney, Frank
Mr. Charles Grey.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hill, J. E. B.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Balniel, Lord
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, John


Blaker, Peter
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Francis


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jopling, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Channon, H. P. G.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian




Royle, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Silvester, Frederick


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lubbock, Eric
Sinclair, Sir George


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony


Dean, Paul
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eden, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Tilney, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
Wright, Esmond


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Hector Monro.

Clause 14

THE POST OFFICE USERS' COUNCILS

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 16, line 18, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 24.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take the following Amendments: No. 62, in line 26, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 28.
No. 63, in page 16, leave out line 31.
No. 64, in page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
No. 66, in line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 18.

Mr. Ridley: The effect of this group of Amendments is to remove the users' council for Scotland and the users' council for Wales and Monmouthshire from the Bill. I say at the outset of my brief speech that this is not meant as a hostile gesture to those regions or to their interests, but rather it is intended to facilitate the proper representation of Scots and Welshmen on the council for the nation as a whole.
The Bill allows for there to be a council for Scotland, a council for Wales and a council for Britain as a whole—none, be it noted, for England. In Committee, we had a good debate whether there should be provided a users' council for England, as it were a second-tier authority to match that proposed for Scotland and that proposed for Wales. Although rejecting the suggestion, the Postmaster-General undertook to consider it before Report.
The right hon. Gentleman has kindly written me a letter giving the results of his consideration, which confirm in his opinion that there should not be a users' council for England—either a council for the whole of England or several councils for the different regions of England. All of us agree that if we are to have second-tier councils for England, one would be insufficient, because England is so large and diverse, and that there would need to be a number—six or seven—of English councils.
In his letter he said that he had come to the following conclusion:
Frankly, I am opposed to any provision for statutory Regional Councils on these lines".

Later in the letter he added:
A tier of statutory Regional Councils would complicate the organisation, confuse the customer, and interpose a barrier between the National Council and the local Advisory Committees. It would also cost money which in my view would be better spent on strengthening the resources of the National Council.
If it is wrong to set up a second tier of regional councils to apply to England, why is it right to set up a second tier of regional councils to apply to Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Hay: And to Northern Ireland.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: It seems to me that what goes for England in this respect could well go for Scotland, Wales and Ireland, too.
This is intended to facilitate the representation of all the regions of the British Isles by allowing a much more flexible structure to be established. I argued in Committee, and I argue now, that whatever is the right representation for these different regions, it should be decided upon by the National Council, which undoubtedly will contain some members from each of the regions of Britain. The chairman will undoubtedly take this into account, and he might well decide to set up regional councils for Scotland and for Wales. To prejudge that decision in a statutory form by insisting on these regional councils is to interfere with the sovereign area of decision-making which should rest with the chairman of the National Council.
The Postmaster-General put another useful consideration in his letter of 28th March. He spoke of the existence of the nearly 200 Post Office advisory committees which are scattered all over the country and which do valuable work. It is right for him to suggest that they should continue to be used and should be developed. It would, therefore, clearly be wrong to have a second tier in the structure of users' councils, as is proposed by having one for Scotland, one for Wales and one for Northern Ireland. It would mean that we would have the advisory committee at the bottom of the scale, followed by a regional council, the second tier, followed by the National Council, the third tier. The Bill would result in a three-tier structure of users' representation, and that in a matter like this seems to be over-weighting the bureaucratic machine.
I rest my case most strongly on the view that the decision as to the best organisation for collecting complaints and ensuring that the shyest people get a chance to put their complaints to the National Council is best left to that council itself. Its job is to find out what is wrong and what people are complaining about and to make sure that it has the chance to pick up those complaints. There is much to be said for allowing it to settle its own structure and organisation. It may decide to have special arrangements for Scotland, Wales and for Northern Ireland, and for that matter for regions of England, but it may prefer to rest on the several hundred advisory councils, as is the present intention of the Chairman of the National Users' Council, Dr. Kamme.
We should leave it to him. It seems an odd structure to have a National Council for the whole of Britain, followed by a regional council for Wales and a regional council for Scotland and a regional council for Northern Ireland, but nothing for England, with a third tier of the advisory committees.
I am not skilled in the work of consumer representation and I have considerable doubts about its value, but if we are to have this structure, we should make it as effective as possible, and to try to tie the National Council in advance by insisting on a particular and illogical type of structure would be a mistake.

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has argued this series of Amendments with impeccable logic. As logic is not exactly the hallmark of the Postmaster-General and his Department in the context of the Bill so far, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.
I speak as one who formerly had some degree of responsibility for and experience of users' councils; in my case they were transport users' consultative councils. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he or his successor as Minister of Posts and Communications will find that the kind of structure which he proposes to erect is a cumbersome sort of apparatus and that we would do far better with one national council to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, with smaller committees much more closely in touch with

local feelings, than with a second tier wedged between the two.
I draw attention to some of the powers and requirements which will be involved and which are contained in Clause 14. Once we have one of these councils, we at once have to have payment for the chairman and the members, and provision is made for payment of allowances. There are specific references to the appointment of officers and staff. At once premises have to be taken, often somewhat expensive premises; at once people have to be made aware of the existence of the councils as a channel of communication, and that requires advertising.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again about this matter. There may be certain national susceptibilities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which have to be taken into account whenever a national Statute of this kind is prepared, but here we have a perfect case for not requiring a special section of sub-councils of a national council. I hope that the Postmaster-General will agree to the Amendment, because the proposed organisation will not be of any great value but, on the contrary, may cost much money and consume much time and effort which could be more profitably used elsewhere.

Mr. Mawby: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has done the House a service by proposing this Amendment. He has given the right hon. Gentleman and his Department another opportunity to consider this matter.
This is not the first time that this sort of approach has been made to this issue. A similar process has been followed in the Development of Tourism Bill. A National Council is to be set up and the Bill proposed sub-councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not for England. But the Committee in that case has added a council for England. With this Bill there would be no purpose in having councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If we are to have a National Council for users which is to do its job properly, its chairman and Members must have sufficient power to be able to decide how to conduct their affairs. If they feel that there are special considerations which require sub-councils to be concerned with


Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland affairs, they should be able to set up such sub-councils, I prefer a National Council with such power and I therefore support the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not know whether the Amendment has the support of the official Opposition. It will be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) supports it. The House is remarkably short of back bench spokesmen on Ulster and of spokesmen on Wales at this stage of our discussions.

Mr. Hay: On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman drawing attention to the fact that not enough Members are present?

Mr. Stonehouse: Sufficient are present to continue the debate. I was simply saying that in the absence of hon. Members from those parts of the United Kingdom it falls to my lot to develop the arguments for having country councils for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
There is a very strong argument for having separate Committees. It is not true, as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said, that they would cost a good deal of money. Bearing in mind the responsibilities they would have, the amount of money that would be spent on them is minimal. Although I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member's experience with transport users' consultative committees, I do not necessarily accept that there are exact parallels here. For instance, in Northern Ireland there are special problems of postal communications.
I had a special problem raised about the delivery by air of the second-class mail. There are communication problems with Eire that it would only be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Council or committee to deal with. In Wales, there are language questions which it would be appropriate for a country council to consider. It would be burdensome for the National Council to have to consider these subsidiary questions. This is a matter which the House should decide, rather than leave it to a National Council that would, in the nature of things, be dominated by representatives from England.
The National Council would play a very big part in representing consumers from the United Kingdom as a whole, but as England is such a major part, in population terms, it would fill the largest number of seats on the Council, and members representing Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales may feel that their interests were not properly looked after. That is why we had the provision in the original Bill for these separate councils. I do not believe that the Amendment is really helpful. It would be bitterly resented in those countries which would lose their councils.
The suggestion that I have set out in correspondence with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), that Dr. Kamme should have consultations with the chairmen of the advisory committees in each post office region outside the Metropolis is a constructive suggestion, and goes in a direction which would meet many of the points he has raised, rather than taking this dramatic course of cutting out the country councils for Scotland, Ireland and Wales. I hope that the House in its wisdom will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) both thought it logical that if there were to be councils in Scotland and Wales there should be one for England. The right hon. Gentleman has fairly pointed out that most of the full council will be English and, therefore, such a separate council is unnecessary.
As there is a practical argument against this I would respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend who says that a National Council for Scotland and Wales is not necessary. It may be logical, but national feelings are not always a question of logic, and there are certainly a number of matters affecting Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland which do not affect England. For these reasons I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the council for Wales will have on it a considerable proportion of people who will be able to speak and read the Welsh language?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening in the debate. I had not realised that he was seated behind me when I spoke before. I assure him that it would be our wish that the council for Wales should include Welsh-speaking members, to put their point of view.

Mr. Ridley: If I may reply, by leave of the House, I found the Postmaster-General's reply entirely lacking in logic. He put forward no reason for rejecting my Amendment. Neither did my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). He had the courtesy to acknowledge that logic appeared to be on my side. All hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches have urged me to disregard logic and, instead, to give way to the natural and laudable desire of the Celtic fringe to have its own Post Office Users' Council. If this is really a matter which would be resented in Wales or Scotland, if it is a matter of burning importance that it should be statutory, who am I to say, in the teeth of this fierce opposition, that it should not be? I think that it is a nonsense, the Bill is rubbish in this respect and I will risk my skin by saying so publicly.
Not wishing to inflame the fires of Celtic nationalism still more, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 17, line 4, after 'with', insert 'the chairman and'.
Members of the Standing Committee will remember that the Assistant Postmaster-General undertook to look at a suggestion contained in an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that members of the country councils should be appointed by the chairmen of those councils, and not the Minister. I am unable to accept that suggestion, because the final responsibility for appointments must rest with the Minister who is answerable to Parliament.
This is the view of the Post Office Users' Council. I accept the point that the views of the chairmen must be taken into account, and the object of this Amendment is to place on the Minister a statutory duty to consult the chairmen before making appointments.

Mr. Stratton Mills: It is true that I moved an Amendment in Committee dealing with this, but I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is a better one. He has moved a considerable way to meet the point which was at the back of my mind. I thank him for tabling it and support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 20, line 19, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 20 and insert:
'the Post Office Users' National Council'.
As drafted, Clause 14 disqualifies from membership of this House the chairmen of the four users' councils which it sets up, that is, the National Council and the three country councils for England, Wales and Monmouthshire, and Northern Ireland. During discussions in Committee the Assistant Postmaster-General undertook to see whether it was necessary for the chairmen of the three country councils to be disqualified. We have come to the conclusion that it is not, and this Amendment ensures that only the Chairman of the National Council will be disqualified.

Mr. Hay: I listened to the Postmaster-General with interest and growing alarm. If I understand the Clause aright, there is provision for allowances and remuneration to be paid to the chairmen of the country councils and for allowances to be paid to members of the country councils. The Amendment makes a Member of the House eligible for certain positions in relation to these country councils and therefore presumably eligible to obtain remuneration or allowances. I have always understood that this was entirely contrary to the practice of the House—that people should not be appointed to jobs outside and occupy offices of profit under the Crown. The House of Commons (Disqualification) Act sets out a whole list of offices from which Members are disqualified.
If the Postmaster-General, in his calm and quiet way, is breaching that longstanding and, I believe, very important tradition—that Members of the House should not be appointed to jobs outside which carry the right of remuneration, salary or allowances—he should "come clean" and tell the House that this is a major and not a minor issue.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not think that it is a major issue, because the chairmen of the country councils will not be paid whereas the Chairman of the National Council will be paid. That is why a distinction is drawn between them.

Mr. Hay: Subsection (16) provides that
The Minister may pay such allowances and remuneration to the chairman of the National Council and the officers and staff of any of the councils established under this section …
The country councils are established under this Clause and the word "officers" could I presume mean the chairmen of the country councils and not necessarily the paid employees. The term "officers" of the country councils must surely be wide enough to embrace the chairmen, the vice-chairmen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is merely intervening.

Mr. Hay: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stonehouse: These gentlemen will be civil servants or officials. There is no question that the chairmen of the country councils will be paid for rendering service as a result of a direct appointment by the Minister. This is the distinction between the chairmen of the country councils and the chairman of the National Council.

Mr. Ridley: That news will be greeted with great disappointment in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it will be greeted here with considerable relief. I am extremely glad that the Minister, having taken the point made in Committee, has seen fit to exclude the chairmen of the country councils from the House of Commons (Disqualification) Act. It seemed to me complete nonsense that the chairmen of the country councils, whose function is to protect the consumer and to protest, should be barred from the House of Commons which exists to protect the consumer.
Surely he would be a better chairman of the country council, or indeed a better member of any council, if he were a Member of the House. He would have more voice. We must not disqualify more people than is absolutely essential from being Members of the House. I support the Amendment, and I am grateful to the Postmaster-General for moving it.

Mr. George Brown: I was a bit puzzled by the Postmaster-General's reply. The chairmen of the country council will represent the consumer. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that they would be civil servants.

Mr. Stonehouse: No.

Mr. Brown: That was what I understood him to say. The Chairman of the National Council clearly will not be a civil servant. Where does the civil servant come into this?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) for his question. The chairmen and members of the councils will be members of the public appointed by the Minister as custodians of the consumer interest. They will be serviced by officials who will be civil servants who will be paid for as set out in the Bill.
I draw a distinction between the civil servants who are the officers of the country councils and the chairmen and members of the councils who are the custodians of the public interest appointed by the Minister. Only the Chairman of the National Council is to be paid a salary for his part-time services. The other members of the various councils can receive allowances. I hope that this clears up the point.

Mr. Dempsey: By "allowances" for the chairmen and members of the council, does my right hon. Friend mean normal allowances as compensation for loss of earnings together with subsistence and travelling expenses?

Mr. Stonehouse: We should leave these details to be dealt with by the Minister at his own discretion rather than debate them at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 20, line 20, at end insert:
(21) The Minister shall report to Parliament annually the details of any remuneration and allowances paid under this section.
I am not fussy about the drafting of the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General would like to change it in any way, I should be more than happy to accept such changes, provided the sense of the Amendment is


retained. This is a remarkably modest addition to the Clause which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept with alacrity. We all wish to make progress with the Bill, and if he would indicate by suitable gesture his willingness to meet us on the point, I would immediately sit down. Since the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to do that, I am obliged to expand a little on the argument.
I do not think it necessary for me to declaim at length the unpleasant and odious fact that State patronage has enormously increased. The number of jobs available for the Government to distribute has grown very considerably. It makes a big leap forward with every extension of public ownership. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, would not permit me to expand on this matter. Patronage would have made a very big step forward had the Parliament (No. 2) Bill not ended up where it properly belonged.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for warning himself that he was going out of order.

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for confirming that my suspicions were correct. I will not transgress further.
I remind the Postmaster-General that the power of patronage is something which Parliament has looked upon with jealousy. Although the merits of Lord North have been compared recently with those of the Prime Minister, I still feel that if Lord North were alive today, he might think that if he had not learned all the lessons concerning patronage that he could have done—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not asking Lord North to present an annual account. The hon. Member must come to his Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: Surely, Mr. Speaker, in the course of a rather dull Bill one is allowed to decorate one's speech slightly, even if not at length. I find it felicitous to remind myself that there was once so admirable a Prime Minister as Lord North when today we have to languish under other themes.
I am asking the right hon. Gentleman—I do not see what the arguments are against it—to produce an annual return to Parliament stating what he is paying to

his appointees. This would not involve him or anybody else in a great deal of labour and it would make clear to everyone what was being done. It would be in the national interest. The public are entitled to be fully informed of what is done in their name, particularly when it comes to the proliferation of jobs because, however great the stature of the characters who are to become either chairmen or members of the various councils, and no matter what their abilities, I very much doubt whether they will be able to safeguard the national interest with a Measure like this as their background. Still, I do not doubt that they will do their best and that they are entitled to some regard in their thankless and almost impossible task. For the benefit of Professor Parkinson as well as of myself, however, I hope that we can all be told regularly what their reward and remuneration is.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful for the manner in which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) moved his Amendment. I agree with him that it is important that there should be some knowledge by the public and by the House of the amount of remuneration that is being paid in these fields. I wonder, however, whether it is necessary to adopt the cumbersome procedure that the hon. Member has suggested, namely, that the information should be laid before the House annually in the way that the Amendment suggests. It would also be extremely cumbersome to include all the details of all the allowances paid to the members and staff of the councils as is suggested.
There will, of course, be ample opportunity for hon. Members to question the sponsoring Minister as to the expenses incurred under the subsection. Hon. Members will be able to obtain all the details that the hon. Member is seeking to obtain by a simple inquiry of the Minister. This is much preferable to putting a statutory provision in the Bill in the way that the Amendment proposes.
I hope that with the assurance that it will be a matter which is open for Parliamentary questioning and, indeed, debate—for instance, on an Adjournment debate if desired—the hon. Member will feel that, having achieved his purpose, he can withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: If I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I can only say that it will be because my natural good nature and benevolence have overcome my better judgment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

VESTING IN THE POST OFFICE OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES GENERALLY

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 22, line 44, leave out paragraph (j).
The authorship of paragraph (j) is quite clearly in dispute between the Parliamentary draftsmen and Lewis Carroll. If Lewis Carroll has prior rights over this, it must have been because he had in mind the example of his own creature, Humpty Dumpty, who said that words must mean what he intended them to mean, otherwise they were useless.
I quote paragraph (j):
rights and liabilities that subsist under such a contract entered into on behalf of the Crown as falls within subsection (1) of the next but one following section (it being assumed that subsection (2) thereof had been omitted).

Mr. Cyril Bence: Wonderful.

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support and the merriment which is the most kindly way of treating this sort of stuff.
I wonder whether one can be so bold as to ask the Minister a quite simple question. Why was the
next but one following section
not described by its own Christian name as Section 18 of the Act? That would seem to me to be a modest way of simplifying or slightly improving a fairly abominable literary situation.
I feel sure that I need not go on at length to deal with the Amendment and describe what subsection (2) of Clause 18 would do to paragraph (j) if Clause 18(2) were enabled to survive in respect of this subsection of Clause 16. That sentence makes at least as good sense as anything which is written here. I look forward with eagerness to hearing the Postmaster-General say that in another

place he will make this important literary improvement.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is obtaining a reputation for himself as a semantic vigilante. He is no mean figure at scrutinising the various subsections of the Bill. I congratulate him on unearthing some passages in it. I assure him, however, that the paragraph in question is correctly worded and that it would be inappropriate—indeed, unwise—for it to be deleted.
Paragraph (j) of subsection (2) of Clause 16 is concerned with a technical problem concerning the vesting arrangements for contracts. This subsection makes sure that there is no conflict between paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of Clause 16 and subsection (1) of Clause 18. If paragraph (j) were deleted, the two subsections would clash.
These vesting problems are very complex and the provisions concerned are very much a matter for experts. If the hon. Member would like me to do so, I will give him far more detail on the subject, but I hope that he will accept my assurance that subsection (2) is not—

Mr. Bence: Theological.

Mr. Stonehouse: It is not theological, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is saying from a seated position. It is extremely important in order to avoid a clash, which I have described, and which would happen between Clause 16(1)(f) and Clause 18(1).
I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Member for Yeovil will feel that he has served his purpose.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I have not been quite able to follow the argument on the link between Clause 16(1)(f) and paragraph (e) of that subsection, which deals with contracts of the Minister of Public Building and Works and so on, and Clause 18(1) which deals with matters relating to patents. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could explain the link there and the conflicts that might arise there.

Mr. Stonehouse: If the House really wants me to give a fuller explanation, I will do so, of course.
Clause 16(2)(j) excepts from vesting in the Post Office, through the operation of subsection (1) of that Clause, rights enjoyed by the Crown with reference to the functions of the Postmaster-General and corresponding liabilities of the Crown. There are some contracts entered into by the Postmaster-General for Post Office purposes which contain incidental provisions conferring on the Crown generally, and not alone on the Postmaster-General, rights in respect of patents, inventions or registered designs. If these incidental provisions were allowed to vest in the new Post Office by virtue of Clause 16(1), the Crown would lose its rights under them.
Clause 18(1) therefore deals separately with these contracts, leaving the rights in the incidental provisions, and any corresponding liabilities to make payments for their use, vested in the Crown, but giving the Post Office the right to enjoy them concurrently with the Crown, subject to any corresponding liability for payment. Because these incidental Crown rights are not vested in the Post Office by Clause 18(1), Clause 16(2)(e) does not except them from Clause 16(1).
Therefore, if paragraph (j) were left out there would be a conflict between Clause 16(1)(f) which in terms would vest these rights in the Post Office, and Clause 18(1), which leaves the rights vested in the Crown.
I hope that that explanation will fully satisfy hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I think the right hon. Gentleman has answered a number of questions which were not actually asked. Perhaps he would answer one question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and which I did not hear answered, why the words
the next but one following section (it being assumed that subsection (2) thereof had been omitted)
are there. My hon. Friend said, why not call it by its "Christian name"? I think that this is the thing which has puzzled one most. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have a look at the drafting of this between now and the Bill being in another place.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am always willing to look at drafting, but I would suggest

that this form of words is sufficient identification of Clause 18(1) and therefore that as it fulfils its purpose of identification, that is sufficient to justify it.

Mr. Peyton: As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say he is prepared to look at the drafting—we can construe that, I hope, not too literally, but that he will look at the drafting—I am minded to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, if only as a tribute to the passionate conviction with which he delivered his last argument but one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

POWER OF THE MINISTER TO OVERRIDE SECTION 16 IN CASE OF DIFFICULTY OR UNCERTAINTY

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, in page 23, line 2, leave out 'difficulties or'.
Speaking of difficulties, I hardly know what to say since I am addressing a member of a Government who are notorious as the architects of their own difficulties, but I will not expand upon that.
I would just ask why, if the difficulties have been created by the previous Clause, they should be ironed out by this one. If the difficulties and uncertainties were created by the previous Clause, I can understand the draftsmen, in the circumstances, wishing to iron out the uncertainties created by the previous Clause, but I cannot understand why the difficulties should be here as well. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to explain this.
I think that we would be going quite far enough in agreeing that subsection (1) should read:
If it appears to the Minister expedient so to do for the purpose of removing any uncertainties arising out of the operation of the last foregoing section ….
I look forward to hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Hay: I rise to support my hon. Friend, because, so far as I can recollect, this is a form of words which is unprecedented in the technical sense. It very frequently happens that a Statute


contains phrases of a character equivalent to this, enabling the Minister, exceptionally, to override the specific provisions of a Statute and for the purpose of avoiding doubt or uncertainty, but, to my knowledge, this is the first time—certainly, it is the first time I have ever seen it—that such a power has been granted to a Minister for the purpose of removing "difficulties". Therefore, I think my hon. Friend is on a perfectly good point. The House, and Parliament as a whole, of course, should be very chary indeed of giving power to the Executive to override the provisions of a Statute.
Of course, it is a highly convenient power for a Minister to have in his hands, but it is one we need to be extremely careful about granting, and we should grant it only if we are satisfied that the matter to which the power relates is so complicated and so difficult and so uncertain or liable to the risk of so much uncertainty that such a power could properly be given, without the Minister being obliged to come back to the House to ask for fresh legislation. No one wants to encumber Parliament with a mass of legislation—any more than it is at the moment, when, heaven knows, it is bad enough already. Therefore, a provision of this kind is not, in my personal opinion, quite so bad as it may seem to look.
Nevertheless, I urge the Postmaster-General to look carefully at this, because I have a feeling that this is a new precedent, that the words "difficulties or" have not been used before as here. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman wants to be careful, because somebody—it may be in another Government—one day may come along and quote Section 17 of the Post Office Act, 1969, as being a perfect precedent for introducing power enabling him to override difficulties in Statute.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I wish to add, only briefly, that this Clause does enable the Minister to direct that property already vested can be divested if "difficulties" arise. This adds weight to the point my hon. Friend was making, about the uncertainty which could arise, because if property, and property of all sorts, has been vested in the Post Office or the Minister, individuals might be acutely embarrassed by legal consequences by the

fact that an order, made under Clause 16 for vesting the property, was subsequently to be divested because the Minister found difficulty or inconvenience.

Mr. Stonehouse: Clause 16 vests in the Post Office property of the Crown which immediately before the appointed day was used for or in connection with the activities of the Postmaster-General except property described in subsection (2) of that Clause, which will remain vested in the Crown, and the excepted property includes property, other than land, which was used or appropriated for use exclusively for Savings Bank functions of the Postmaster-General. Clause 16(2)(a) refers to this. This clear-cut division will achieve a sensible distribution of property in all foreseeable cases, but it would be unwise to assume that no marginal exceptions will come to light when the Clause takes effect, and this is why we need Clause 17 and we need it to cover difficulties as well as uncertainties.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), who reminded us earlier of his former responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, said that he had no recollection of any precedent for this form of words. His memory has slightly deserted him on this occasion, because the Transport Act 1962 includes this form of words. I quote from Schedule 6, paragraph 4(1):
The Minister shall have power—
(a) for the purpose of removing any difficulties or uncertainties in the application of sections thirty-one and thirty-two of this Act, or of reconciling the operation of those sections …
I hope, with that admirable precedent of the Transport Act, passed in 1962, the House will agree that this form of words can be accepted.

Mr. Peyton: What an incubator of evil the Transport Act, 1962, is in providing the present Government with more alibis than any other organisation known to man. The Minister may need to have the power to expunge any difficulties, since Clause 16 should prove, according to the hopes of its parents, to be the most fertile field in producing difficulties.
On second thoughts, as the Minister will probably need these powers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 76.

Mr. Peyton: Bearing in mind the limpid tones in which this subsection is expressed in contrast with some others, I had it in mind not to move the Amendment.

Clause 20

RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO CONVEYANCE OF MAILS

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 25, line 22, leave out from 'Board' to first 'to' in line 25 and insert:
'and certain other bodies which provide transport services'.
This is a minor Amendment to take account of the Transport (London) Bill. The Amendment is drafted in such a way that the Clause will operate correctly whether or not the Transport (London) Bill becomes law before the Post Office Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

GENERAL CLASSES OF ACTS NOT INFRINGING THE TELECOMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE

7.45 p.m

Mr. Iain Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, in page 30, line 7, at end insert:
(d) the provision of equipment, other than by the Post Office, for receiving telephone signals within the premises of a person.
The object of the Amendment is to add to the number of exceptions under Clause 25 that would not infringe the privilege of the Post Office. In other words, it is an attempt slightly to restrict the Post Office's monopoly, and it would have the effect of allowing manufacturers to instal receiving equipment, Post Office receivers, in the house of the consumer. The arguments for stopping the monopoly at the front door of the consumer were rehearsed at length upstairs, and I will speak only briefly about them.
The first argument is that such a system would almost certainly be good for the export trade. Our manufacturers in this country, as the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) pointed out in

Committee, have been restricted in the past because they manufacture purely for the Post Office. Because the Post Office is not subject to direct consumer pressure, the Post Office requirements are often rather narrowly put, and it is, therefore, more difficult than it otherwise would be for manufacturers to get export orders abroad.
The second argument is that it would be good for the consumer. The consumer would have a wider range of choice than he now has, and consumer pressure would be brought to bear upon the supplier rather more directly and economically than at present.
The third argument is that the Post Office would be freed from a heavy capital outlay. About £300 million of capital is tied up in consumer apparatus. The Post Office already has a vast capital outlay, the whole burden of which falls on the taxpayer because the Government does not borrow, and, therefore, the taxpayer has to finance the whole of the Post Office expansion. We say that it would be far more logical and far more efficient for some of that expansion to be financed by the consumer and not by the taxpayer. The final argument is that monopoly should be as flexible as possible, and this is an area where it could be made flexible.
In Committee, the Postmaster-General deployed several arguments which boiled down to two. One was that the Post Office was a natural monopoly. I am not sure what a natural monopoly is, but the contention that it is a natural monopoly is not borne out by experience overseas, either in Canada or in the United States. In the United States, the Bell telephone monopoly has been loosened at this point, as it has in Canada. Just as the Gas and Electricity Councils have the monopoly supply of gas and electricity and considerable freedom in the appliances that may be installed by the consumer, so we believe should the Post Office.
The Postmaster-General says that this would endanger the entire telecommunications system, but that is not so. Such equipment has already been installed in foreign embassies and a fuse at the exchange prevents any great disaster taking place. Moreover, we do not suggest that the Post Office should not be able to prescribe standards;


indeed, we made many suggestions in Committee on how this could be done.
The other main argument relied on by the Postmaster-General was that of staff security. He said this:
The other reason for the need for monopoly is to enable the excellent staff, who have played such a part in developing the system up to date, and the new staff who are being recruited to assist this development, to have a feeling of security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 11th February 1969; c. 696.]
I do not think that that is a very strong argument. There is no particular security in being employed in a nationalised industry, as coalminers or members of the steel industry will testify. The argument does not stand up.
Although the Post Office should always be a good employer, and give its staff the maximum amount of feasible security, it would be wrong for it to give such a great amount of security that its operations became inefficient. Therefore, the staff security argument does not apply.
The Minister said that he was considering a little flexibility in this matter. We hope that the non-possumus line which he took upstairs in Committee will soften here on the Floor of the House. We hope that his natural obduracy will be tempered by his natural courtesy and desire to meet the legitimate expectations of those on this side of the House.
I have made only a short speech because we have heard many of the arguments before, but this is an important point and we hope that the Postmaster-General will make some concession to us.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) has already indicated that this problem has been debated several times in Standing Committee and also on the Floor of the House during the Report stage. Therefore, I will follow his example and not go through all the arguments against the proposal which he put forward.
He suggested that the Amendment would be good for manufacturers, good for the consumer, and would help the Post Office in that it would ease the burden on the investment programme. I beg to disagree with him. The idea that manufacturers would be assisted by having this sort of freedom is somewhat thin. The Post Office is providing an

immense investment programme. In the current five years it is double the figure for the previous five years, and that figure in turn was double the amount spent in the five years before that. The investment programme is increasing at an enormous rate.
Manufacturers are hard put to meet the various demands put upon them by the Post Office. To suggest that it would be of great assistance to manufacturers to give them the freedom which has been suggested is not a tenable argument, particularly when the hon. Gentleman says that the Post Office should be able to lay down strict specifications for the manufacturers. I believe that this invalidates the point he made—

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I did not specifically use the argument that it would help the manufacturers. I said that it would help the export trade.

Mr. Stonehouse: The export trade is better helped by having close co-ordination between the Post Office as a principal customer and the supplying firms. We have several means of ensuring this close co-operation with a view to identifying specifications for our own domestic demands which will assist in the export trade. That is the best way to do it.
I feel that consumers would not welcome this provision. Consumers at present are satisfied, and indeed they get a very good service indeed. The maintenance service provided by the Post Office is extremely good. Complaints about the reception of signals on domestic equipment are followed up and put right within a short space of time.
The hon. Gentleman again used the argument that the Gas Council and Electricity Council allow customers to buy and fit, or have fitted, their own appliances. The argument does not hold water. Gas and electricity supply is all in one direction, whereas a telephone is linked to a highly complex telecommunication network. It would be most unwise to allow equipment to be fitted to that network unless it were fully consistent with the network. I insist that the points which I have already made in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House must stand and that it would be unwise to make the concession as suggested in the Amendment.

Mr. Tom Boardman: This point was debated at length in Committee, and I shall refrain from going over all the arguments which were then put quite forcibly. The Postmaster-General in his speech repeated the boast that success is measured by the amount of money which has been spent. I am not concerned with the amount of money spent. I am concerned that one should get the best value from any expenditure.
In this Amendment we seek to bring about a flexibility and value for money which is not being achieved under the present system. Equipment supplied by the G.P.O. in this country falls well below the standard of equipment provided by, for example, the Bell Telephone Company. The Postmaster-General may shake his head; perhaps he is thinking of equipment which is in the pipeline.
There was an exhibition, not so very long ago, which displayed equipment of the new Post Office age. Some of it was reasonably sophisticated, but not as sophisticated as the sort of equipment which is in general use in many other countries. When one inquired about when any of these items could be supplied, one was told that they were prototypes in course of development and that the prospect of getting any of them was remote indeed for many years.
If private enterprise were given a licence to develop and fit these types of equipment, I cannot imagine that consumers would be treated in a similar way. Development prototypes would have been tested, marketed and proved.

Instead of that situation, many hon. Members, as I myself, are still using telephones of exactly the same types as those I remember as a youth—which is all too long ago—except that the present receiver rattles even more. This is the sort of evil at which the Amendment is aimed.

We seek to end the Post Office monopoly at the front door. I appreciate the argument of the Postmaster-General that the supply of equipment must conform with the standard since it links with the communication system. But cannot a standard be set, cannot the ordinary routine specifications for the essential safety precautions of the network be complied with by those who are developing Post Office equipment, in a similar way to the specifications which are complied with by those who fit electrical installations?

The Minister displayed a good deal of willingness to consider these matters in Committee, and it was understood that the position was being reviewed. Therefore, I hope that he will assure us that something will be done to allow the benefits of private research and development and the dynamic efforts which come from that quarter to be added to the telephone system in order to bring it up to date. I support the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 223.

Division No. 209.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Costain, A. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Awdry, Daniel
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Balniel, Lord
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bell, Ronald
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hay, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bessell, Peter
Dean, Paul
Hill, J. E. B.


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Holland, Philip


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hornby, Richard


Black, Sir Cyril
Doughty, Charles
Hunt, John


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Errington, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Braine, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Foster, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kimball, Marcus


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kitson, Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
Glover, Sir Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Channon, H. P. G.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lambton, Viscount


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, Raymond
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert


Cooke, Robert
Grant-Ferris, R.
MacArthur, Ian




Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sinclair, Sir George


McMaster, Stanley
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Speed, Keith


Marten, Neil
Percival, Ian
Stodart, Anthony


Maude, Angus
Peyton, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Mawby, Ray
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Summers, Sir Spencer


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Miscampbell, Norman
Prior, J. M. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Pym, Francis
Waddington, David


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walters, Dennis


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Weatherill, Bernard


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Murton, Oscar
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ridsdale, Julian
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Neave, Airey
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wright, Esmond


Nott, John
Scott-Hopkins, James



Onslow, Cranley
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Jasper More and


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lubbock, Eric


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Alldritt, Walter
Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Anderson, Donald
Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Finch, Harold
McCann, John


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Barnett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Baxter, William
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Beaney, Alan
Freeson, Reginald
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Bence, Cyril
Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Binns, John
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bishop, E. S.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie


Booth, Albert
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marquand, David


Boston, Terence
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Maxwell, Robert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, John



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Buchan, Norman
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Hazell, Bert
Murray, Albert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Neal, Harold


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan


Conlan, Bernard
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ogden, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Horner, John
Oram, Albert E.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Judd, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dell, Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Park, Trevor


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dewar, Donald
Lawson, George
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, John (Reading)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Pentland, Norman


Eadie, Alex
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Ensor, David
Luard, Evan
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)







Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitaker, Ben


Probert, Arthur
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rankin, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roebuck, Roy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tuck, Raphael
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rowlands, E.
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sheldon, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Silverman, Julius
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)



Skeffington, Arthur
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Slater, Joseph
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Dr. M. S. Miller.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 30, line 7, at end insert:
(d) the running of a system for the conveyance of sounds or visual images by means of electromagnetic radiation of frequency exceeding three terahertz propagated freely through the atmosphere for the purpose that the sounds or visual images should be generally received by the public.
These words are necessary to exempt from the monopoly the new phenomenon known as optical broadcasting. We had a debate on this subject in Committee, but the Postmaster-General's answer was remarkably unsatisfactory. He said that technological developments in future will make it extremely difficult to know what will happen in optical broadcasting, that it may well become a major form of communication, and that it would be wrong to allow anybody else to practise in this sphere without a licence from the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman was very firm, harsh and uncompromising in his attitude to this new form of communication.
I do not know much about it. I am not technically qualified to know the potential of optical broadcasting. I understand that the operation of "Radio Love" is simply people watching signals either with the naked eye or through a pair of binoculars. Large numbers of people can watch one single display of symbols or pictures broadcast optically.
Nor do I know what a terahertz is. However, I believe this to be a good Amendment, because it makes it possible for people to indulge in optical broadcasting which, as far as I can see, is a perfectly harmless sport.
The Postmaster-General has to make out his case for bringing this within the monopoly of the Post Office. It is no

good him saying that this might be important in future and, therefore, he will include it. He might just as well have included computers or nuclear physics or some subject as wide as that. We have to be convinced that it is right to prevent people indulging in optical broadcasting.
Unlike me, the Postmaster-General has to give a technical, or even a technological, explanation. It is no good saying that he is assured on the best advice that this is important and that it could infringe the monopoly of the Post Office. He must convince the House that it is right to prevent people indulging in this apparently simple sport of watching signals through binoculars or with the naked eye. I am not convinced that this is so from what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee.
I believe that it is very important to keep the monopoly as restricted and limited as possible. In slight conflict with some of my hon. Friends, I acknowledge the need for a monopoly for the Post Office. If an area of industry is nationalised—I am against that—and if the State is to administer telecommunications, it is pointless for the State to compete with others and to have a pseudo bogus competitive situation set-up. The quid pro quo is that the monopoly should be defined as minutely and exactly as possible.
I will not weary the House by quoting what the Postmaster-General said on the two occasions on which he referred to it, but nothing that he said was in any sense a justification for including optical broadcasting in the monopoly, other than that he had been advised that it was a good thing to do. He must tell us what he expects in future may happen which


will mean that this is in some way an essential sphere over which the Post Office should have control.
There may be an explanation. It is possible that he will be able to tell the House what he is frightened of and what the reason is. But I do not think that the House would be wise to accept a bland assurance. If he were to say, "These are complicated scientific matters which hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand", that would not be enough. We want to know what is wrong with optical broadcasting which makes it necessary to bring it within the ambit of the monopoly.
I believe that this is an important Amendment. Once these developments are frustrated and interfered with by civil servants, licences, and all the paraphernalia of bureaucracy, there is not doubt that will have a withering effect on enterprise and initiative. I submit that to include optical broadcasting in the monopoly requires justification.

8.15 p.m.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has once again drawn attention to a point which we raised in Committee, namely, the extension of the monopoly.
The Postmaster-General shakes his head. I heard him muttering earlier that this was not an extension of the monopoly. In Committee, he said that it was not, but I still beg to differ with him. On the best legal advice that I can obtain, this is, in fact, an extension of the monopoly.
My hon. Friend is right when he asks the Postmaster-General to tell us why it is necessary to extend the ambit of the monopoly. I draw his attention again to what I quoted in Committee from Section 10(3) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, which is the Act upon which the right hon. Gentleman's monopoly in this sphere is at present based.
The apparatus to which this section applies shall be such apparatus as may be specified in the regulations made thereunder, being apparatus generating, or designed to generate, or liable to generate fortuitously, electromagnetic energy at frequencies of not more than 3 million megacycles per second, and not being wireless telegraphy apparatus.
This answers my hon. Friend's question about terahertz.
The Postmaster-General, throughout our discussions on the Bill, has said that it simply transfers the present powers of the Post Office to a new corporation. It does not. It is extending the powers throughout, as we have argued on many occasions. But certainly on this occasion it is extending the powers, because, under the 1949 Act, there is an upper limit in the frequency spectrum above which the Post Office monopoly does not apply. The Amendment merely seeks to retain that limit so that the powers of Parliament shall be reserved in future above 3 million megacycles.
My hon. Friend should know that much more is involved than optical broadcasting, because above 3 million megacycles lies a whole area of possible future development in cosmic rays. We do not know what our present state of scientific advance may be, but it is possible that many forms of telecommunications may be opened up in the area of the spectrum above 3 million megacycles.
I see that the Postmaster-General agrees with me. My hon. Friend is not only concerned with communications taking place at the speed of light, but with communications taking place at perhaps many times the speed of light at frequencies in areas of the spectrum as yet unexplored.
I have often said, in relation to the Bill, that it is nationalising things which have not yet been invented. It is nationalising without reserving the rights of Parliament. In future, Parliament will not be able to apply its mind to a new field of telecommunications which has not yet been developed and say, "This ought to be part of a State monopoly", or, "This should be free for development by private enterprise". Our argument is that even before it has been invented every conceivable kind of communication is going to be controlled by the new corporation as a form of monopoly.
The only answer made by the Postmaster-General in Committee was to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), who had said that the Postmaster-General was doing away with the restriction on the monopoly and thus extending it and not merely transferring it. The Postmaster-General said:
No, that is not correct. It can be argued that the transmission on frequencies over 3


million—that is, by infra-red or ultra-violet rays, or by X-rays or cosmic rays—is within the existing monopoly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th February, 1969; c. 720–1.]
The right hon. Gentleman did not go any further. He said it could be argued, but he did not argue it. I am trying to argue it, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will argue it, because if he puts forward a good argument we can have some kind of meaningful discussion. It is no use his telling Parliament that we shall take all these extra powers and, at the same time, say "It can be argued that we have them already", unless he proceeds to argue upon what legal basis he already has the powers which he is now proposing to transfer to the new corporation.
Even if the Postmaster-General did have the powers I would still argue that it is wrong to hand them to a new public corporation. It is one thing to have powers vested in a Minister of the Crown, who can be questioned from time to time in the House, and whose exercise of powers is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and quite another thing to hand these powers to a public corporation with no direct responsibility to Parliament in this sense. If the people who originally passed the Telegraph Acts could have foreseen that what they were doing was nationalising the telephone in advance they would not necessarily have given this blanket power—that is, if they could have conceived such a thing as a telephone.
We are not only being asked to give the new corporation power over all the existing forms of communication; we are now saying, "We shall extend these powers into realms as yet impossible to imagine." Those are intolerable powers to hand to a public corporation. I hope that the Postmaster-General will give us a very much better answer than he has given so far. We await it with great interest.

Mr. Mawby: I remind the House that we are dealing with matters which do not infringe the telecommunications privilege. In Committee and again in the House the right hon. Gentleman referred quite often to breaching the monopoly, which is saying the same thing in different words. In Committee, he talked about a monopoly so much that

he reminded me of a pop singer singing, "Me and my Monopoly"
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that if the Clause is not amended it will give the new corporation powers in excess of those which the Postmaster-General enjoys at present. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that other arguments could be put forward, but he never put them forward himself.
I can understand any Postmaster-General upholding a system which will make certain that we are not in breach of international agreements at some time in the future. The agreements reached at Copenhagen and elsewhere on wavelength allocation are important and it is probably right that the Post Office should have a monopoly of the use of normal wavelengths. But we are talking about wavelengths which exceed 3 million megacycles. We are entering a range which at present involves cosmic rays and X-rays, which have never normally been used for communications systems.
I submit that we ought not to leave the Clause without a good argument being put forward by the Postmaster-General showing why the monopoly should be extended to cover matters which have not been covered up to now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Member must relate his argument more specifically to Amendment No. 87. It is not a question of a monopoly being extended but a question why it should be curbed by the Amendment.

Mr. Mawby: I am sorry if you feel that I am out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am dealing with messages that could be transmitted and received at over 3 million megacycles. They are covered by the Amendment. I probably misled you and the House when I pointed out that the Amendment seeks to prevent complete monopoly powers being transferred. The Amendment would breach the exclusive monopoly powers designed for the corporation. I am very doubtful whether powers to control services over 3 million megacycles are already enjoyed by the Postmaster-General. I should like to hear his argument proving that he already enjoys those powers. He has never exercised them. Perhaps he can


tell us that progress has been made in this matter to such an extent that many lessons have been learned. In Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman told us:
A great deal of research is going ahead into optical transmission. The Post Office is conducting a great deal of research. It could become extremely important in the future, and it would be an unnecessary invasion of the Post Office monopoly"—
there is that word again—
if we allowed these new systems to be developed by a competitor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Commitee D, 18th February, 1969; c. 770.]
If these services were still allowed to be outside the monopoly of the Post Office, which the Amendment calls for, it would not cause any embarrassment either to the new Minister of Posts and Telecommunications or to the Corporation because neither the Corporation nor the Postmaster-General have entered into any international agreement on the allocation of these particular wavelengths, whereas on other wavelengths they have.
I accept that they are committed to international agreements on wavelength allocations and that it is quite proper that the Corporation should retain the power to make certain that there will be no allocation of wavelengths already allocated. We do not have to go into the reasons why we banned the private broadcasters. We did it because they were using wavelengths which were already allocated by international agreement of which the Post Office was a signatory. I make no complaint of that at all.
8.30 p.m.
All we are dealing with at the moment are the broadcasting services which could be operated over 3 million megacycles. Neither the Postmaster-General nor the corporation are committed to any international agreements on the allocation of these wavelengths, and in those circumstances I can see no reason why this House should extend the monopoly which the Post Office already has to an area in which many lessons still have to be learned, because the Postmaster-General says that research is still continuing in this matter.
On the other hand, I am open to argument from the Postmaster-General, as I know my hon. Friends are, being fair-minded persons, so long as he does not

again merely say that if the Amendment were accepted it would breach the monopoly, because this is a new field and we ought to have a really good reason for extending a monopoly into this field which could include optical broadcasting in the future.

Mr. Stonehouse: I think it has become clear in the course of our debates on the Bill that there is a big philosophical gap between the two sides of the House. We on this side of the House believe that it is important that the Post Office Corporation should continue to have the full monopoly powers of the Post Office as a Department of State, and hon. Members opposite believe, on the other hand, that it is right that the monopoly of the Post Office should be breached in certain ways in order that the Post Office should be subject to some competition in these fields in which it has a traditional monopoly.
I congratulate hon. Members opposite upon their ingenuity in putting down an Amendment which, I think, is another example of the attempts from that side of the House to breach the existing monopoly. I appreciate that there is some doubt on that side of the House as to whether optical broadcasting comes within the existing monopoly. I believe that it does.
I was much encouraged by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who speaks with a great deal of experience on this matter. He knows the history. He knows how the Telegraph Act, 1869, laid down a certain monopoly and it was afterwards interpreted by the courts to extend to a great many more things that were not even invented at that time, including the telephone. That is how it all started.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he thought that hon. Members who made the decision in those days would very much regret that it had developed in the way that it has. I believe that they would be delighted at learning they had made this decision and that it had been possible, as a result of the passing of that Act in 1869, for this great telecommunications monopoly to have been established, which has been shown to have been such an enormous advantage to our economy and such a wonderful example of public enterprise in Britain.
I was strengthened in my point of view by the observations that were made from the benches opposite on the subject of optical broadcasting, which is a convenient way of referring to broadcasting at the upper frequency limit of 3 terahertz or over. This is, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, equivalent to 3 megacycles per second in the old terminology. I believe that the monopoly extends to this upper frequency limit. I acknowledge that it has not been tested in the courts, but I believe that, if it were so tested, as was the question of the telephone following the Telegraph Act, 1869, it would be accepted by the courts as falling within the monopoly.
The Bill is drafted as it is in order to make clear beyond any shadow of doubt that upper-frequency broadcasting falls within the monopoly. It is important that that be made clear, so that the Post Office Corporation knows exactly that it enjoys a real monopoly and is not being given a pig in a poke. It must have a real monopoly to do its job. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, who knows a good deal about these things, said that it is possible that new methods of telecommunication may be developed at the higher frequencies. He is quite right. Experiments are going on which may prove that in a short time. That being so, it may be possible, within a few years, that the Post Office, which the House of Commons generally now wishes to have a monopoly of telecommunications in Britain, will find its monopoly being infringed by a completely new development of that sort.
I believe that the situation under the original Telegraph Act developed into a worthwhile monopoly covering new developments. I believe that the House wants—

Captain Orr: The country has suffered

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has his own philosophy. He knows that I do not agree.

Captain Orr: All I said was that we have suffered from it.

Mr. Stonehouse: No, I do not agree that we have suffered from this monopoly. We have benefited from it. I believe that it is the view of the House generally that the monopoly should continue. I understand

the wish of hon. Members opposite to find every possible way to breach the monopoly. I believe that they are genuine and sincere in their objections. All I want them to understand is that I do not agree.
I want the Post Office Corporation to continue to have the monopoly powers which the existing Post Office as a Department of State enjoys. It is my submission that the Post Office has the right of optical broadcasting monopoly, although I acknowledge that it has not been through the courts. I hope that, in the light of those observations—

Mr. Ridley: Even given the right hon. Gentleman's Socialist standpoint in looking at the matter, has it occurred to him that it might be a good idea to put higher frequency broadcasting into a separate and different State corporation altogether? He would be precluded from so doing by the terms of the Bill as drafted. Would it not be better to keep this monopoly himself and then arrange for it to be put out to whomever he thought right?

Mr. Stonehouse: No, that would not be a good idea. We can trust the Post Office Corporation to take the fullest advantage of these new developments. After all, it is in the Dollis Hill Research Station that much of the research work is going on. The Post Office Corporation, I am sure, will be fully anxious to take advantage of all the new opportunities which technology will give. There is no question of stifling The Post Office Corporation will be dynamic, only too anxious to take advantage of innovations. For all those reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman said that he believed that there was a big philosophical gap between the two sides of the House. Having heard his speech, I am glad to think that that is so. I should not like to be anywhere near the right hon. Gentleman philosophically. His attitude is, "We must have a monopoly. We do not know what we have the monopoly over, and we do not very much care. So long as we have a monopoly, that is all right by us."
The whole history of technological innovation is against the right hon. Gentleman. In Committee, I brought up the example of the stage coach, but I shall


not repeat that here. The right hon. Gentleman must know that that is the way to stifle innovation and not to encourage it.
At the same time, he goes on saying that we wish to breach the existing monopoly. As I think he really knows in his heart of hearts, that is not what we seek to do At present the best view is that the Postmaster-General does not have a monopoly over 3 million megacycles. In Committee he was very tentative in his assertions about this. He said on 11th February:
It can be argued …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 11th February 1969; c. 704.]
He then went out of his way not to argue the case. On 13th February he said:
… it could be so construed …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th February, 1969; c. 750.]
But almost anything could be construed, and that was a very tentative way of saying it. Today he said, "I believe it does …", so he is very much in two minds on the point. Our view that it is extending the monopoly here rather than that we are seeking to breach it is the right one.
The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to answer the arguments of my

hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) about optical broadcasting. The whole case is that optical broadcasting is no danger to anyone and does not interfere with anyone. It is impossible for it to interfere with anyone, and it is impossible for it to be clandestine.

Therefore, the only argument for the right hon. Gentleman's case is that somehow these technical developments will be embarrassing if they are carried out by a private individual rather than the dead hand of the monopoly. He used the word "embarrassing" in Committee. There is no case for curbing this very brilliant inventor, Mr. Williams, because the right hon. Gentleman does not wish him to have the credit for the invention or the freedom to develop it. There are no social reasons for curbing optical broadcasting. The right hon. Gentleman was least convincing on this point in Committee and again tonight. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 221.

Division No. 210.]
AYES
[8.43 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bessell, Peter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus


Black, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Blaker, Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Braine, Bernard
Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hay, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Nott, John


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crouch, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Dance, James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Ian


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lambton, Viscount
Peyton, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Doughty, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Pink, R. Bonner


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch




Prior, J. M. L.
Sinclair, Sir George
Waddington, David


Pym, Francis
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Walters, Dennis


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Speed, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stodart, Anthony
Wiggin, A. W.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wright, Esmond


Scott-Hopkins, James
Temple, John M.



Sharples, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Jasper More and


Silvester, Frederick
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fowler, Gerry
Mendelson, John


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Gardner, Tony
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Ashley, Jack
Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Neal, Harold


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Newens, Stan


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oakes, Gordon


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Ogden, Eric


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oram, Albert E.


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Binns, John
Hannan, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Padley, Walter


Blackburn, F.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hazell, Bert
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boston, Terence
Henig, Stanley
Park, Trevor


Boyden, James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brooks, Edwin
Horner, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Castle, Rt. Kn. Barbara
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Roebuck, Roy


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Delargy, Hugh
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dell, Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skeffington, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, John
Small, William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Eadie, Alex
Macdonald, A. H.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ellis, John
McGuire, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


English, Michael
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverne, Dick


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Ensor, David
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Tomney, Frank


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
MacPherson, Malcolm
Varley, Eric G.


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Watkins, David (Consett)


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy



Ford, Ben
Maxwell, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)







Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Whitaker, Ben
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)



White, Mrs. Eirene
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitlock, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Wilkins, W. A.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Winnick, David

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 30, line 22, at end insert:
'person who is not a tenant or occupier of premises owned by him'.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) told me that he conceded that the Amendment was not perfectly drafted, but its purpose is clear.
In Committee, we discussed the whole problem of common services in blocks of flats. My hon. Friend intended by this Amendment to deal with the mischief whereby the monopoly extends to inside a block of flats. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it plain that when the owner of a block of flats provides all the kinds of common services mentioned in Committee, he will not thereby infringe the G.P.O. monopoly.
I do not think that it goes far enough. I believe that if my hon. Friend had considered it further he would have sought to draw the Amendment wider, because it does not meet the present mischief whereby when there is a block of flats individually owned, the provision of common services is caught by the Bill's extension of the monopoly. Thus, I am not entirely satisfied with the Amendment. However, I should like the right hon. Gentleman's observations. Is he able to accept the Amendment in its present form? Is he willing to consider this matter between now and the later stages of the Bill? At least he could meet the principle, even if he could not deal with the position of individual flats in one block.
The problem goes beyond blocks of flats. For example, many common services are sometimes provided to buildings in a factory complex when the buildings are not necessarily a single set of premises. In spite of his adamantine appearance at the Box in our last discussion, I think that the Postmaster-General will probably agree with our view that some Amendment is needed here.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us some assurances in Committee about blocks of flats. Perhaps he could write

something into the Bill in another place along the lines which my hon. Friend has in mind?

Mr. Roy Roebuck: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to a matter upon which I should like to have your guidance? There are several hon. Members who will have to sit here until a late hour. Unfortunately, owing to the withdrawal of labour by the restaurant staff, hon. Members cannot obtain refreshments. Would it be possible to summon the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee here so that this matter could be examined and this strife healed, to enable us to proceed with our work?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman and others may find themselves, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mawby: I wish to support this Amendment, the point of which was argued in Committee. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is completely happy about the situation in which this widespread monopoly extends to common services enjoyed in blocks of flats. I do not believe that such installations as the thermostat operating a central heating system, the common services enjoyed by residents such as the microphone receiver at the front door whereby a person in the flat can communicate with someone outside and operate a button to unlock the front door are intended to be caught by the Act. They are systems of communication in which the corporation would not normally be interested.
The Amendment may not be correctly drafted, but I would ask the Postmaster-General to give us his views. If there is no amendment there will be widespread breaches of the law by those who consider that this would be too stupid an Act to abide by. It would be wrong for the House to pass legislation which could lead to widespread technical evasion.

Mr. Stonehouse: I appreciate the intentions of hon. Members. I agree that


there may be occasions when certain services which are provided in blocks of flats which could be caught by the monopoly, but with which the Post Office Corporation would not wish to interfere, in the sense of having to provide the service itself. In that case, the Corporation would let out the common service system in flats by general licence, but it would specifically exclude the suggestion of developing telephone communications between flats, which would be an obvious infringement of the monopoly, which the House is anxious should be protected for the Post Office.

Captain Orr: Would this apply to an exchange serving a block of flats? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would not permit competition with the monopoly from the exchange in the provision of internal telephones?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I would not permit competition with the Post Office monopoly in telephonic communication between separate flats. It is acknowledged in the Bill that telephone installations within a single business or a single house are not caught by the monopoly. However, installations which go outside the individual business or household would be caught by the monopoly. There would be no intention of giving a licence for a system which involved telephonic communication between separate flats. In the event of the need for communication of another form, such as the opening of doors, the Post Office will willingly give a licence to enable this sort of service to be provided.
I emphasise that in the Bill we are transferring the existing monopoly to the Post Office Corporation. These systems are operated at present. There are automatic systems which open the front doors of blocks of flats. They operate very successfully, and I see no reason why similar systems should not operate in future.

Captain Orr: Is the Postmaster-General saying that none of these systems can operate at present without a licence from him?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, I am. The danger is that a liberal interpretation of some of these systems, leading for instance, to telephonic communication

between flats, would be an open and obvious infringement of the monopoly. Therefore, power must be maintained to ensure that there are no such infringements.

Mr. Mawby: The right hon. Gentleman is saying many things which I hoped he would say, but would telephonic communication between the front door of the block of flats and the resident of the flats to enable him to operate the front door and to talk to the person on the doorstep be excluded?

Mr. Stonehouse: That would not be excluded. There must be some means of identification of the caller at the front door of a block of flats. It is not the Post Office's intention to prevent that sort of simple communication.
The Amendment is defective in a number of respects. Its wording is very wide. It would extend to systems run by a landlord as a service for tenants at widely separated parts of a large landed estate or even tenants on different estates owned by the same landlord. As it is defective, and as I do not think it is required to achieve the objectives I have described, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) will not press it.

Captain Orr: We have conceded that the Amendment is defective. May I reiterate my point? Between now and the Bill's going to another place, would the right hon. Gentleman consider giving effect to the general desire of the Post Office to exempt the services which he mentioned? The licensing procedure which would follow will be exceedingly cumbersome and difficult. Many people operating these services have not a clue that they must have a licence.

Mr. Stonehouse: It would be better to proceed on the lines which I have suggested rather than to put in the Bill a provision which would be or could be subject to misinterpretation. Clearly, it would be better for the Post Office to have the monopoly and then issue licences in the way that I have described.

Mr. Tom Boardman: It is very disturbing to hear that there will be a large number of applications for licences for so many harmless but essential devices. I wish to take up one point made by the Postmaster-General about telephone


systems between premises which are in separate occupation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a telephone system between blocks of flats which under the Bill would clearly infringe the monopoly and for which no licence would be granted. I ask him to take account of the quite common practice in offices of the office-sharing arrangement whereby rooms are let to individual tenants or small professional firms and the like, who tend to have a centralised reception office with an internal telephone system running from the reception office to the various separate firms occupying their one or two rooms in the adjacent parts of the building.
If I understood the Postmaster-General correctly, that would be an infringement of the monopoly and a system for which he would not give a licence. It would be most unfortunate if, under the Clause without the Amendment, people operating that type of system were to be deprived of the services of an internal telephone which they can at present operate through private telephone services. If the Amendment is not to be pressed, I hope that the Postmaster-General will consider whether an Amendment can be made in another place.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I join my hon. Friends in pressing the right hon. Gentleman to have another look at this. He has gone a long way to conceding the general principle of the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) when he admitted that some systems in blocks of flats are caught by the general wording of the Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Post Office did not wish to interfere with those arrangements and that, therefore, a general licence would be issued. That is not a very satisfactory way of doing it. The better way would be to specify the things that the Post Office wants to have covered or to make certain exceptions, such as, for example, door systems. It seems crazy that thousands of flats throughout the country must have licences to operate a door telephone communication system to somebody upstairs.

Mr. Stonehouse: This has to be done at the moment.

Mr. Mills: I should be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman could prove to the satisfaction of the House that those powers which he claims to have are widely enforced. My experience is that although the Post Office may have those powers, very few people have licences for that kind of thing.
There is a lot to be said for taking the opportunity of a major piece of legislation like this for a tidying-up operation and for the Post Office to exempt pointless acts of crazy bureaucracy from the Clause. I hope that the Postmaster-General will give some words of encouragement to indicate that he will have another look at this before the Bill is considered in another place.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am always willing to consider points again and I will consider the special case which was raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman). The hon. Member may well have a valid point and I will look at it It is the anxiety of the Post Office and, I believe, the Post Office Corporation in the future to have a fairly sensible approach to this question.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a similar assurance concerning door communication systems?

Mr. Stonehouse: I have already said that I do not think that I can concede a point in that direction. It would be better to deal with it in the way I have suggested.

Captain Orr: Will the right hon. Gentleman include also burglar alarms?

Mr. Stonehouse: No.

Captain Orr: As the Postmaster-General has met us in some way about this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26

ACTS RELATING TO BROADCASTING NOT INFRINGING THE TELECOMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The next Amendment is No. 91, with which it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss


Amendment No. 92, in page 31, line 18, after 'reception', insert:
'or to operate a broadcast relay service,'
and Amendment No. 94, in Clause 27, page 31, line 33, at end insert:
(3) If any person who has applied for a licence to operate a relay service under subsection (1) of this section is aggrieved at the refusal of the Post Office to grant such a licence or at the attachment by the Post Office to the grant of such a licence of terms and conditions which to that person seem unduly onerous or unfair or in restraint of any business carried on or proposed to be carried on by him, he may within such time as may be limited in that behalf by rules made by the Minister regulating the procedure relating to such appeals, appeal to the Minister for the grant of such a licence or for the deletion, alteration or modification of those terms and conditions, and the Minister shall within such time as may be prescribed by such rules determine those questions and if the Minister decides that a licence ought to be granted the Post Office shall forthwith grant a licence upon such terms and conditions as may be indicated in the Minister's decision.

Mr. Hay: If it is to the convenience of the Chair and of the House, and if it is necessary to press the Government on the matter which I now wish to discuss, may we have, as Mr. Speaker has indicated that he would be prepared to allow, a Division? He indicated it would be on Amendment No. 92 rather than on No. 91, since the second Amendment I have mentioned has to do with a somewhat technical point, which I shall come to in due course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that that is the case.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move Amendment No. 91, in page 31, line 15, at end insert:
'or through the medium of a relay service licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949'.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Do I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are now taking Amendments No. 91, No. 92 and No. 94 together?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing Amendments No. 91, 92 and 94, and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) is moving Amendment No. 91. A Division will be allowed on Amendment No. 92.

Mr. Hay: That I understand to be the case.
I make no apology to the House for returning once more to the subject of relay operations, because there is a very substantial matter of principle involved here. I must begin by declaring an interest which I have. I am a member of the boards of several companies which are involved in providing television and radio relay services in different parts of the country; I am also a member of the council of the Relay Services Association, which is the trade association which looks after the interests of relay operators. It may be thought that this is not so much a disqualification in the context of this discussion, but an advantage, because being in the position I am I have some special knowledge of the effect of the Bill upon relay operators:
The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes".
Believe me, some of these tooth points go rather deep.
Many hon. Members appear to have little idea as to what exactly relay is. Unless an hon. Member happens to have a relay system operating in his constituency, or unless he is served by a relay system himself, he may know very little about it. I should then explain to the House that the whole basis of relay operations is to provide an improved method of receiving television and broadcast signals.
A relay operator erects, at some convenient and carefully chosen point in a town, or, often, outside it, a mast with a very sophisticated type of aerial which enables signals to be brought in and sent by wire to a large number of houses in the locality. The signals are received at the best possible site. They are, if I may use the expression, cleaned up of all kinds of interference and other problems by highly professional equipment, and the signal which is then passed down a cable to the subscriber in his house is as perfect as it would be possible to make it. A relay operator also has some element of public service in what he does, in that he enables this mess of television aerials on the skyline to be got rid of.
I come back to the point I made a moment ago, because I believe it is fundamental to an understanding of what we are talking about tonight, and it is this point which, I believe, with all respect,


the Postmaster-General has not understood, that relay is not broadcasting; it is an improved method of reception. Sometimes it is the only method of reception, and it is particularly the case with what are called ultra high frequency transmissions which, I remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman, will be the normal type of transmission in a year or two's time, because we are moving into the u.h.f. system of broadcasting.
The industry that we are discussing is not an insubstantial industry. About £100 million worth of capital has been invested in the industry since 1924. Relay operators operate in about 600 towns, and are currently serving about 1¼ million homes. There are 280 separate companies, many of them competing with each other, and they often obtain contracts with local authorities as a result of open tender. Many local authorities themselves operate relay systems. They buy the equipment, install it and provide the service for the benefit of their tenants.
The present position is briefly this. The Postmaster-General has certain licensing powers. He has powers to license the "head end" equipment as it is called, which is roughly equivalent to the ordinary domestic receiver but used by a relay operator. Those powers are under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. Under the Telegraph Act, 1869, the Postmaster-General has the power to license the operation of a telegraph. So under the existing law the Postmaster-General grants a licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act so that the operator of the relay system can receive the signal, and a licence under the Telegraph Act, 1869, for him to operate the equivalent of a telegraph, that is to say, to pass signals from his receiving station down the wires to the houses of the subscribers. Often a joint licence is issued.
Under the Bill these powers are to be split. The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will be the licensing authority for the wireless telegraphy side; that is in Clause 3. The Post Office Corporation will be the body which will authorise the operation of the telegraph, and that is in Clause 27. It may be asked, what is the trouble; what is this all about?
The main point that I wish to bring to the attention of the House is this. The

General Post Office presided over by the right hon. Gentleman has in recent months begun to move actively into the business of relay operation, and the Postmaster-General has made no bones about it. It is the intention that the Post Office Corporation will do so to an increasing extent in the future.
The history of this matter is quite interesting. In 1964 and 1965 various Post Office officials hinted at plans that were being developed inside the Post Office for combining telephone, sound and television services. As far back as December, 1966, in answer to a Parliamentary Question by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), the then Postmaster-General, who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science, said that the Post Office was studying a common cable for broadcast distribution and individual wires for telephones. He went on to say that one lead would serve for sound broadcasting, television, telephone, the reading of meters and so on.
On Second Reading of the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill the same right hon. Gentleman gave further news of this and stated that a common cable was in prospect. He said this:
… we are also carrying out a costing exercise in a new town for a comprehensive cable which will carry telephone, television, sound radio, the reading of electricity meters and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 835.]
On 14th February, 1967, the right hon. Gentleman's Department issued a Press notice about an experiment to be conducted in Washington new town in County Durham. It was written in advertising man's language. In the most glowing terms it described a revolutionary system, "a maid-of-all-work communications system, that would revolutionise British home and business life"—so said the Press notice. The world was agog waiting to see what it was all about.
But then we discovered, in answer to a number of Questions which I put down, that the system to be provided in Washington was nothing like the description which had been given. This was despite the fact that, in the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman, the present Postmaster-General, in November 1968, in the somewhat inappropriate forum of the annual luncheon of the Relay Services


Association, chose to speak of very exciting possibilities, announced that the Washington new town experiment was to be extended, and that the G.P.O. proposed to tender for further installations at Craigavon, Northern Ireland, Irvine, Scotland, and the Milton Keynes new towns.
Incidentally, it has now emerged, in answer to certain Parliamentary Questions which I put down on 16th April, that this is not to be a single cable system, that the relay cable to be used is of a kind which has given a great deal of trouble to relay companies in the past, and that the line repeaters which are to be used are of an obsolescent pattern, with a distressing propensity to blow the fuses when there is a thunderstorm in the vicinity.
The right hon. Gentleman might look into this matter, because this is the space age system which he has described. There is nothing in the design of the systems for Washington, and so on, which differs from conventional systems. It will be a difficult problem for the Minister within a short time for the systems to carry television signals on u.h.f. bands without modifying the receivers which they are intended to serve.
Some of my hon. Friends, when raising this matter in Standing Committee, referred to the situation in the Irvine new town. I mention these matters because they are highly relevant to the prospect of the Post Office getting into this business and taking the powers in this Bill to enable them to do so without any kind of appeal against their decision.
The case of Irvine new town is interesting, but it has been difficult to discover, despite a good deal of probing by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), exactly what it is the Post Office is doing. But there are grounds for considerable suspicion that undue influence and pressure was put upon the new town development corporation in Irvine to persuade it not to sign a contract with an operator only 100 or 200 yards away from the area of the new town and, instead, to give it to the Post Office. It is incidents of this kind which cause us to worry, and this is the reason for the Amendment.
Those of us who are concerned with relay operations—and I am a director of

relay companies—do not in any way fear competition. If the Post Office wants to compete, let it have a go. But there are two pre-conditions which any fair-minded person must insist upon. The first is that the competition is fair and is not subsidised by the taxpayer. This is something about which we worry considerably, in the context of the Post Office getting into this business. The second pre-condition, which is even more important, is that it does not have to get a licence to operate from its own competitors.
The Bill, if unamended, will require the relay operator, in future, to go to the Post Office Corporation for a licence to enable him to carry on. He will also have to go to the corporation to obtain a licence to serve any new business he may acquire. But the corporation itself is actively engaged, and intends even more actively to engage, in this very kind of business. Even to pronounce the situation must show the House that there is a serious matter of principle.
What has the right hon. Gentleman said? This matter has been raised on several occasions and there have been flaws in the Minister's replies. I will analyse some of the answers the right hon. Gentleman has given. He said that at some time before 1976, when the B.B.C. Charter and the licences of the independent television companies come to be renewed, there will be a review of broadcasting.
When the licences of the relay companies expired a year or two ago they were renewed, but deliberately only until the end of the present year. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who is President of the Relay Services Association, dated 16th April, the right hon. Gentleman undertook that while he held the office of Postmaster-General he would grant new dual licences under both of his existing powers, which I described, until the end of 1976. However, he said that he would not grant them for a longer period because of the review of broadcasting. At least, he said that the new licences which would be granted would bind the new Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the new Post Office Corporation until 1976.
In Committee usptairs, on 13th February, the right hon. Gentleman gave an


assurance—I am sure that he gave it genuinely, believing that it would be helpful—that, in his view, the Post Office Corporation would act in a responsible way in future. Throughout the debates on the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has, for these reasons, been unwilling to amend the Bill; because, he says, any amendment would breach the Post Office monopoly.
There are certain major criticisms that one can make of the right hon. Gentleman's case. The first is that he completely ignores the position which will exist after 1976. After that date, if the Bill goes through unamended, the Post Office will be free to cancel or refuse to renew the existing licences that he, as Postmaster-General, would have granted. We cannot be certain that there will be legislation to amend this legislation after 1976. There will be a review of broadcasting, but no hon. Member can lay his hand on his heart and say, "There is bound to be amending legislation, amending this Bill, before 1976, or shortly after that date".
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, which he has given as Postmaster-General, that the Post Office will act reasonably cannot bind the Post Office Corporation. He has been at pains to remind the House that the whole purpose of the Bill is to separate the two functions of the Post Office as it stands and to set up the new Corporation with the least possible interference by the Minister. Any assurance that the right hon. Gentleman gives—I will not be unkind and say that it cannot be worth the paper on which it is written—cannot bind the Corporation.
Thirdly, everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said about this matter so far, including the fact that he is prepared to grant new licences until 1976, relates only to the existing business of relay companies. It does not relate to any new business that they may get between now and 1976. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is saying, "I am prepared to protect your situation until 1976, but if you have a company which wishes to go into a new area or to extend into an adjacent area, the Bill will at once come into operation and immediately the operator will be obliged to go to the Post Office—its own competitor, which may be competing against it for the same piece

of business—and obtain a licence." This cannot be right.
9.30 p.m.
Finally, I again urge the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, to free his mind of his completely false analogy with broadcasting. I say again that the relay operator is not a broadcaster. He provides an improved method of reception better than one can get by an aerial in or on top of one's house. But he does not engage in broadcasting. For example, the Copyright Act makes it clear that the relay operation does not involve any breach of copyright. The Act was designed with that point very much in mind.
If the Postmaster-General insists on equating relay with broadcasting for his own purposes of refusing to look beyond 1976, we should equally insist that, since Clause 26 exempts broadcasting from infringing the telecommunications monopoly relay should be embraced in the definition of "broadcasting authority" in subsection (2). In other words, if it is sauce for the goose, it is sauce for the gander. If the right hon. Gentleman claims it as a broadcasting operation, it should be in the same area of "broadcasting authority" as defined in subsection (2). That is the purpose of the main Amendment, No. 92.
I now briefly mention Amendment No. 91. Clause 26 says that the telecommunications privilege is not infringed by two things: first, a direct wireless telegraphy transmission and, secondly, a direct wireless telegraphy reception, which means over one's own aerial. But if the reception is not direct—that is, if it is reception by a subscriber to a relay system who gets his signal over a wire—I am advised that, as the Bill is drafted, the privilege would apparently be infringed. Therefore, Amendment No. 91 is intended to put this right. Indeed, it stands entirely on its own, apart from the main point that I have been discussing.
I return briefly to the main problem remaining: that relay, as a business operation, should not have to be licensed by its competitor. That is the simple, clear matter of principle to which the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, must address his mind and his remarks to the House. It is a matter of principle. So we give him a choice of


alternatives in the two Amendments. On the one hand, Amendment No. 92, which excludes the privately owned relay companies altogether from the obligation of a licence from their own competitor or, on the other hand, if he prefers it, Amendment No. 94, which institutes the right of appeal against refusal to grant a licence by the Post Office or the attaching thereto of unreasonable conditions.
The simple point is that relay should not be obliged to obtain a licence from its competitor. This is wrong; this is unfair.

Captain Orr: My hon Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and I, in dealing with the then extensions of the monopoly in Committee, dealt with the position of the relay stations. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that neither of us was able to make so powerful a case as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) with his immense experience.
It would not be unreasonable for me, as someone who, so far as I know, has no financial interest in the matter whatever, to add a few words. Of course, not having that interest, I cannot claim the expertise of my hon. Friend, whose case I thought absolutely cogent.
In our earlier proceedings on Report, we discussed a new Clause of mine which sought to set up a Postal and Telecommunications Board. One of the objects of that Board was to deal with the kind of case which my hon. Friend has put forward where the new Corporation is, under the Bill as drafted, to be judge and jury in a case against its own competitors.
My hon. Friend's Amendment is designed to remedy that in relation to relay services. I would have liked to see it remedied in all cases. Nevertheless, I support the Amendment. I thought that my hon. Friend's strongest argument was one which was not all that apparent to people who have studied the matter cursorily, namely, the fact that relay services are not broadcasting services; they are receivers.
That is why I found it difficult to accept the Postmaster-General's argument in Committee that this was one of the questions which would be dealt with by the review of broadcasting to be carried out in 1976. That review is to be a

review of broadcasting services—presumably like the Pilkington Committee, which examined the existing services of the B.B.C., I.T.A., sound radio, commercial broadcasting, local broadcasting, and so on.
I cannot see why a certain method of reception is germane to such a review. My hon. Friend makes a very good point when he says that the Post Office cannot have it both ways. If it wants to consider this as a method of broadcasting, why not accept Amendment No. 92? The Post Office seems to be trying to have it both ways. I think that my hon. Friend is right—the evidence suggests that he is—in saying that the Post Office wants to go into this business itself. It is afraid to say so so early.
The Postmaster-General is not saying, "From now on we shall nationalise the relay services. In future all these services will be provided by the new Corporation", but it is obvious from what has happened in the various new towns—Craigavon, near my constituency, was mentioned just now—that the new Corporation will follow what the Post Office is now doing and will feel its way forward into this field. Every form of pressure will be used.
My hon. Friend said that in the case of one of the new towns he thought that improper pressure had been exercised—

Mr. Hay: I never said anything as specific as that. I think that I said that the circumstances which surrounded the Irvine new town transaction gave rise to some degree of suspicion that there had been some improper influence.

Captain Orr: I accept my hon. Friend's elegant amendment. I think that we know what he is after. I think that it gave ground for suspicion that the Post Office may well have used methods which we might not like. My point is not whether or not it occurred, but the fact that under the Bill it will not be necessary for the new Corporation to exert any pressure; it will merely use the law of the land. Under the Bill we shall give it authority to suppress all its competitors. It need only withdraw the licence of a competitor. Suppose that the new corporation wants to provide relay services in the new town of Craigavon and suppose that the Post Office decides that it will provide those


services. It can see whether it can get a tender in open competition. If it finds that it cannot do so, there is nothing to prevent the new corporation from saying, "We will not license the competitors; we will do it ourselves".

Mr. Hay: It could, if it chose, say to the new town development corporation—or the commission, as I believe it is called in Northern Ireland—"It is no use your thinking that you can have an open tender, and it is no use your thinking that you can award the contract to a private operator. If you do so, he will not get a licence".

Captain Orr: That is so. Without invoking the power, the very fact that the monopoly power exists in the legislation is a sufficient weapon to enable the Corporation to get the business if it wants it. The Postmaster-General may say that this is not the intention. If the Postmaster-General says that, I am ready to accept that he believes it. I do not necessarily believe that between now and 1976 a new Corporation setting itself up, particularly with a review of broadcasting hanging over its head, will not invoke the power.
The Postmaster-General may give us understandings about the existing business, but, as my hon. Friend says, that understanding does not extend to any future business for which relay companies may tender between now and 1976. The new Corporation, in order to try to pre-empt any decision of the review of broadcasting, may well try to get as much of the market as it possibly can in the mean time. Who is to say that any understanding that the Postmaster-General may give us now will prevent the Corporation from doing so if the House of Commons gives it the unqualified power so to do?
I do not like this at all. I think this is an extension of monopoly service on a par with some of the others, but it is a particularly bad one because it is an attack—not like so many of the other things that we were talking about, an attack on future developments, but an attack on existing considerable private enterprise investment which has been entirely successful with the general public. More and more people want to rent those sets because it is a good service.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that he cannot say that the private bodies have been entirely successful? In my area, for example, there have been innumerable complaints about the operation of the relay services. Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the individual householder already pays to a monopoly if he lives in a large council estate where the local authority provides a relay service?

Captain Orr: He is not faced with a monopoly. He has got other choices. He can erect an aerial and receive direct. He does not have to deal with a relay company. Even in a private home a man can put up an aerial at any time and receive direct from the broadcasting authority. He can put an aerial on top of his set or on the top of his house.
There is another sanction. If the local authority concerned is not satisfied with the kind of reception enjoyed by the people in its area, it can change its company. The local authority can go out to tender. If the hon. Gentleman opposes this Amendment and if the new Corporation has the sole right to install these services, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will have no choice whatever in the future and no protection from a monopoly which will be as bad as we have ever seen.
My hon. Friend made an excellent case. The Postmaster-General must deal with it. As my hon. Friend said, if we do not have some such provision as Amendment No. 91 or Amendment No. 92, we shall need legislation when we come to 1976 unless, by then, the Government of the day seek to destroy the present relay companies. That also is a powerful argument, because on of the things that Governments do not like to do, after a review of broadcasting, is to bring in legislation. They avoid it if they possibly can. Therefore, those who will have to defend the private companies in the future will be faced with a picture between now and 1976 of the new Corporation entering into the business, and then, by 1976, when the review has taken place, they will, whatever may be reported in the review, have to fight for legislation. Anyone who knows anything about business knows that one of the


worst positions to be in is one in which one has to fight for legislation.
The Postmaster-General ought to think seriously on this matter again. I hope that he will accept at least one of the Amendments. If he does not, I shall strongly urge my hon. Friend not to withdraw his Amendment, and I hope that we shall press it to a Division.

9.45 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I support the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). He has already on my behalf declared my interest in the matter under discussion as President of the Relay Services Association of Great Britain. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend tell the House as much as he did about the nature of relay operations, about which some hon. Members are still under a misapprehension. I was glad, also, that he told the House something of their extent and importance.
At all stages of our discussions on the Bill, the Minister has repeatedly made clear his determination to uphold at all costs the principle of monopoly operation for the new Post Office. He has also made clear that the new Post Office Corporation itself proposes to go into the relay business in a big way. As my hon. Friend said, the relay operators do not fear fair competition. How far competition from any State-subsidised public corporation is likely to be fair is a matter for debate. We have had some examples recently in the airline business. But, in this case, what relay operators find particularly disturbing is that, under the proposed new system, the power to issue or withhold licences will reside in a direct and very powerful competitor, namely, the Post Office. The Post Office will be judge and jury. If it chooses, it will be able to suppress competition and put awkward rivals out of the way altogether by simply not issuing them with licences.
It is true that for the immediate future this state of affairs is mitigated to some extent by assurances the Minister gave me recently in a letter all that he was doing was to give effect to the assurances he and his predecessor had given at one time or another on the subject of the licences. But this mitigation does not give the industry any security after 1976, when the licences are

due to expire, nor does it affect the principle involved and its unfairness, which is what my hon. Friends and I object to so much.
For all these reasons, I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will reconsider the position and accept the Amendments.

Mr. Frank Tomney: As the Bill goes through the House it becomes more curious, and if the Amendments are not accepted it will be more curious still.
The arguments advanced have made me think of new possibilities that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and his advisers have presumably not thought about. The whole question turns on whether the service concerned is a broadcasting service and whether the Post Office as a monopoly has the right to issue licences to its competitors or deny them. The service is not now classified as a broadcasting service as such, especially by the unions operating in the industry, of which mine is a very powerful union. We regard it as a service industry. If it were not, we should have no right to organise the labour in it. It would be organised by A.C.T.A.T. or the National Association of Broadcasting Staffs.
Is my right hon. Friend telling us that in the operation of the licence system after 1976 he will deny my union the right to organise membership in any setup that the Post Office wants to operate, or is he telling us that my members will have no right to enter into new contracts and will have to condense their operations and business? If so, many will be put out of work, and our membership will decline. It means no more and no less than that. My right hon. Friend or a future Postmaster-General will apparently sit as judge and jury and tell the existing relay companies that after 1976 he may or may not complete their execution. That is not good enough.
I ask my right hon. Friend to take more advice on the matter and see where this will lead us. As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said, it is an established industry. It has had £100 million of capital invested in it over about 40 years. It has grown up slowly. It does not register huge profits, but it provides a vital service. If it is to be denied the opportunity to tender for marginal


business it may as well not go on, because no firm can live unless it progresses in active competition for business which is available to it and open to tender. But one cannot obtain a tender certificate if the Postmaster-General refuses to issue a licence. That is the kernel of the matter. If he or any future Postmaster-General refuses to issue a licence, that creates a grievous situation for my members in the industry. They, too, have to consider their future and their pension rights.
I cannot add more to what was admirably said by the hon. Member for Henley, but I ask the Postmaster-General to look at the matter again—and to look at it very seriously. He should consider where it might lead us in seven years. We should not invite chaos in an established industry. The acceptance of either of these Amendments will safeguard the position.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) made some interesting and telling points. He was in error when he said that a future Postmaster-General may say, "We shall not give you a licence". It will not be the Postmaster-General. In future it will be a public Corporation, quite remote from the Minister and from this House. I know that the hon. Member is aware of that, and that what he said was a slip of the tongue, but the issue is important. While we have a Minister at that Box in whose hands the power is placed, the position may not be too bad.

Mr. Tomney: I was trying to tell the Postmaster-General that I am aware of the other authority which may be set up and that I believe that the residual power should rest in the House with the Minister on such issues, despite the establishment of the new Post Office.

Mr. Mawby: This is an important point and the hon. Member has pointed to one of the difficult problems that we have existing organisations which are performing a service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said, these organisations do not fear competition as long as it is fair. If the power resided with a Minister in this House, many of us would not complain. We are complaining that the new Corporation, who obviously will go into this business, will have the right to tell any applicant, any company, even if it has obtained

a franchise from a local authority area, "We will not issue you with a licence". That company will have a suspicion—I will put it no higher—that the fact that it had to apply for a licence to its main competitor meant that its main competitor was not fair in deciding whether to issue a licence.
If the Postmaster-General believes that these are broadcasting authorities, then one of these Amendments will cover the point. If, on the other hand, he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, as I do, that they are only an extension, only a large receiving set which is then providing a service to a large number of customers, the other Amendment will suit. If neither will suit, at least Amendment 94 should be accepted, providing a right of appeal to an independent person in the guise of the new Minister of Posts; at least that would give some satisfaction to the company so that if it felt that it had not been properly treated by its main competitor, it would be able to appeal to the Minister who, the firm would consider, would be reasonably impartial and would take into account all the circumstances surrounding the case.
If none of these Amendments is accepted, we are creating a situation which is not equitable and which certainly will not meet the normal wishes of the House. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should accept one of these Amendments.

Mr. Stonehouse: The House has heard a well-informed debate on the subject of the relay companies. In Standing Committee we went over this ground assisted by observations from the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). Tonight, we have had the additional advice of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) and the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), both of whom speak from deep personal interest in and connection with the relay companies, and the House has been grateful for their observations.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the proceedings on the Post Office Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Stonehouse: The House will be particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Henley for the expertise which he brought to our deliberations. I agreed with many of his comments.
I was particularly pleased that he paid tribute to the work which the companies are doing in relay radio and T.V. broadcasting. There is no doubt that they perform a valuable service. I have especially in mind the valleys in South Wales, where it would be impossible for many ordinary households to receive T.V. by the ordinary means and where for many years the relay companies have been providing an important service.
We have also had the advantage of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), who has connections with the union organising employees in these firms. I recognise the force of his argument on behalf of the members of his union.
However, I am unable to go much further than my previous observations on this subject. I refer the House to my observations in Committee on 30th April, c. 1510 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, when I explained that I had already given an assurance that the companies would be protected until 1976. I have spelt this out in a communication to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire. There will be a guarantee before the appointed day that licences required will be provided for the companies concerned to continue their operations until 1976.
I recognise that this relates to the existing businesses. I think that the relay companies will find that the corporation will be very reasonable about dealing with applications for new businesses, but it would be wrong to go beyond 1976 because, as I have explained, it would be unfortunate to pre-empt the fundamental review of broadcasting which is to be conducted before that date. I said on 13th February that the relay companies in effect were in no different a situation from that of the programme companies under the I.T.A. These were not given any guarantee that they would be able to continue after that date because the whole of broadcasting was to be subject

to a fundamental review, and it would not be right if the relay companies were given any exemption from that.
I recognise that the relay companies are not broadcasting companies in the sense that the I.T.A. companies are, and I recognise that they are not in the same position as the B.B.C., because they do not originate material. But we should not try to anticipate the fundamental review which may consider the relevance of relay systems the technology of which is increasing and improving every week and, in a mere three or four years, may provide a new break-through and a new opportunity for broadcasting by wire not now open to us.
If we were to give guarantees to the relay companies that they were to have a continuation of their business after 1976, an absolute blank cheque to continue, the Royal Commission, or whatever form of review it is considered expedient to appoint, would obviously be handicapped in its consideration of the future of broadcasting for many years.
It would be wrong to pre-empt the field in this way—

Mr. Hay: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I must put this alternative to him. Clause 26(2) exempts broadcasting authorities from infringing upon the telecommunications privilege of the Post Office. Why is there no such rule about the termination of that power in 1976? If the broadcasting authorities are to be fundamentally reviewed, surely they also ought to have some terminal date for their power of exemption from the infringement of the monopoly of the Post Office.

Mr. Stonehouse: The House is aware, if the hon. Gentleman is not, that the I.T.V. companies have a licence to operate until 1976. I have had many complaints in my sponsorship responsibilities for broadcasting from I.T.V. companies who believe this to be a restriction on them. Relay companies are in a different position altogether from the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am not talking about the independent television contractors. The I.T.A. and B.B.C. are broadcasting authorities within the meaning of subsection (2), not the programme contractors. What I am saying is that


if there is to be a fundamental review of the whole of broadcasting, so wide as to embrace the relay companies, why should not the functions of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. be limited to 1976?

Mr. Stonehouse: Because it is known that this fundamental review is to take place. They know perfectly well that the mandate for their responsibilities will be subject to revision. It would be misleading to these 218 companies to give them the impression that they would be allowed to carry on their business after 1976, notwithstanding the review.
I appreciate that there is another factor in the debate. I hark back to the discussion we had on another Amendment, when we were discussing the fundamental monopoly that the Post Office Corporation is taking over from the Post Office as a Department of State. I know that this is not acceptable to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I must tell them that the corporation is being given a telecommunications monopoly. If I may state a simple fact, a monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly. When they say that the Post Office Corporation is to be judge and jury of its own case, they are absolutely correct. I entirely agree. This is because the corporation is to have a telecommunications monopoly.
It would be quite wrong for the telecommunications monopoly to be eroded by giving relay companies who operate in an area of telecommunications some special dispensation to operate a system which is outwith the monopoly which is to be given to the corporation. This is why I have objections to the Amendments.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The right hon. Gentleman has introduced a new point. Would he clear up the kind of criteria which the Post Office Corporation would have for refusing some other person or company a licence to operate in this field? Would it be purely on commercial considerations that it wanted to keep a company out or would there be other reasons as to suitability?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that the corporation would be very reasonable about the way in which it dealt with this business, but it must bear in mind its long-term responsibility as the holder of a telecommunications monopoly and therefore it would not want the operations of the relay companies to erode that monopoly.

I emphasise the long-term responsibility of the corporation in this respect.

Sir F. Maclean: Is not the right hon. Gentleman saying, in effect, that in pursuance of its monopoly the Post Office would simply suppress all competition?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the Post Office will allow competition. I said in Committee that when a relay company is successful in competition in tendering for a new term contract the Post Office will not stand in its way in obtaining that business.
The Post Office will be very reasonable but we are through this Bill establishing a position, not just until 1976, but for a very long time indeed. There will be technological developments which could be extremely important and which would give perhaps the opportunity to the relay companies to infringe the monopoly which it is the intention of the House in passing the Bill to give to the Post Office Corporation.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South referred to Amendment No. 94, which allows for an appeal procedure to the Minister. As usual, he has been extremely helpful to me. Every time he speaks in these debates he clarifies the issue so well that he helps me enormously. He indicated that the Amendment, if accepted, would allow the Minister to infringe the telecommunications monopoly of the Post Office. This was his intention in an earlier Amendment rejected by the House. He now suggests that this Amendment will achieve the same sort of objective.

Captain Orr: Not quite.

Mr. Stonehouse: Not quite, but the objective is similar. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman concedes my point. It helps to clarify my objection. I am against a future Minister being able to allow a piecemeal dismantling of the telecommunications monopoly of the Post Office. I want the telecommunications monopoly of the Post Office to be secure. I do not want a Minister to have the right to allow appeals against the monopoly. I am for a monopoly, and I believe that I carry this side of the House with me in that. We want the Post Office to be able to operate as a national institution without having the profitable


part of its business given to competitive interests who cream it off and undermine the monopoly.
I am referring to Amendment No. 94, which would give the Minister the opportunity of allowing appeals, which is tantamount to achieving the sort of object which was detailed in an earlier Amendment which was rejected by the House, which would allow the monopoly to be broken up in a piecemeal way.
I appreciate that I have not met the points made by the hon. Member for Henley, who has been anxious from the point of view of the relay companies to have a guarantee that they would be able to continue their operations well after 1976. I have said that it is impossible to concede his point on two grounds: first, because the whole of broadcasting will be subjected to review before that time, and, secondly, because such a long-term guarantee would be a fundamental infringement of the very monopoly which we want the Post Office to enjoy.
For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendments.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I appreciate that the House is impatient to come to a decision, but this is a major point in the Bill and the most important with which we have dealt today. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), who is a great authority in these matters, has put very persuasively the arguments for his Amendment, which I will not repeat. There seem, however, still to be two essential points to the debate, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) has acknowledged.
First, why are the relay services being included in the review of broadcasting? As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, relay services are not broadcasting but a form of reception. The Postmaster-General's answer tonight has not in any way dealt with the point made by my hon. Friend.
I believe, however, that the major issue is the second point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley made clear, under the new system it will be necessary for two licences to be acquired by the relay systems, one from the new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—to which we take

no exception—but the other will be from the Corporation, which will be the main competitor of these companies.
Although we are opposed on grounds of political philosophy to the points put by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not feel that his arguments have been reason-and fair. It seems to me to be totally wrong by every practice of the House that the monopoly which is being dispensed should be dispensed by the main competitor without any right of appeal.
The Minister said in Committee that he believed that the Corporation would act in a reasonable way and he said today that it would act reasonably. The logical consequence of his speech tonight, however, was that it would act in such a responsible and reasonable way that it would corner the market.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mills: The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear". Why, therefore, are we going through this form of farce of pretending to give power to issue licences if it is the intention of the doctrinaire Government opposite that the new Corporation should collar the market and do it in such a way that the share of the companies is whittled down little by little?
Surely, it is right that where the Post Office refuses a licence to a company, it should be asked to give its reasons and not simply send back a printed form saying, "We have considered your application and it has been refused"—no reason, no appeal. Surely, the Post Office should give the reason why it has turned down the appeal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider some form of publication of reasons.
This is an issue on which we on this side of the House are deeply opposed to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. We have argued the point at length this evening and in Committee; we have been unable to shift him; he is clear in his doctrinaire Socialism on this point. I advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to express our viewpoint and dissatisfaction in the Lobby.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has said he would rather divide on Amendment No. 92 than on Amendment No. 91. That being so,


perhaps he will now withdraw Amendment No. 91.

Mr. Hay: I prefer that it be negatived.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 92, in page 31, line 18, after 'reception', insert

'or to operate a broadcast relay service'.—[Mr. Hay.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 232.

Division No. 211.]
AYES
[10.21 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hawkins, Paul
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Awdry, Daniel
Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hunt, John
Peyton, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Blaker, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Braine, Bernard
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Jopling, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pym, Francis


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bullus, Sir Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Lambton, Viscount
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, H. P. C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Longden, Gilbert
Silvester, Frederick


Costain, A. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crouch, David
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maddan, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dean, Paul
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wiggin, A. W.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Wright, Esmond


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Jasper More.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.





NOES


Albu, Austen
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Binns, John
Cant, R. B.


Alldritt, Walter
Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Blackburn, F.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Conlan, Bernard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Booth, Albert
Crawshaw, Richard


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Boston, Terence
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Barnes, Michael
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Brooks, Edwin
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Baxter, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Bence, Cyril
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Bessell, Peter
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)




Delargy, Hugh
Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John (Reading)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Probert, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rankin, John


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richard, Ivor


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ennals, David
Luard, Evan
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Ensor, David
Lubbock, Eric
Roberts, Gwilym (Bdefordshire, S.)



Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roebuck, Roy


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
McBride, Neil
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
McCann, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Faulds, Andrew
MacColl, James
Rowlands, E.


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Ryan, John


Finch, Harold
Macdonald, A. H.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Forrester, John
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius


Fowler, Gerry
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Slater, Joseph


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Small, William


Gardner, Tony
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mapp, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gregory, Arnold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taverne, Dick


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John
Varley, Eric G.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wallace, George


Hannan, William
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Albert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hazell, Bert
Neal, Harold
Whitaker, Ben


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Newens, Stan
White, Mrs. Eirene


Henig, Stanley
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Whitlock, William


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oakes, Gordon
Wilkins, W. A.


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hooson, Emlyn
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Horner, John
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Huckfield, Leslie




Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Winnick, David


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Ernest C. Perry and


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Clause 33

THE POST OFFICE'S COMMENCING CAPITAL DEBT

Amendment made: No. 102, in page 36, line 30, leave out "for" and insert "of"—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Clause 35

THE POST OFFICE'S BORROWING POWERS

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 38, line 7, leave out from "Office" to end of line 12 and insert:
, with the consent of the Minister, may, from such person and on such terms as he may, with the approval of the Treasury specify, borrow, in a currency other than sterling, any sum which it has power to borrow in sterling from the Minister".
Clause 35(3) will allow the Post Office to borrow foreign currency, but there is no provision for the Post Office to borrow foreign currency temporarily. There has been some experience of borrowing abroad, for instance, in Germany by the Gas Council. It has become clear that the practical operation of the capital borrowing powers would be helped by a power to borrow temporarily, and the effect of the Amendment is to give the Post Office this power. The gas and electricity authorities already have such a power. It will be seen that this borrowing will be under the full control of Ministers. The Government would authorise temporary borrowing only as an adjunct to the long-term borrowing powers. I hope that the Amendment will find support in the House as an improvement to the existing powers in the Bill.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I wish briefly to intervene on this point, because with previous nationalised industry borrowings abroad, particularly in the case of airlines, they were earning foreign currency. The problem of repayment was not acute because it came out of foreign currency earnings.
There are no circumstances which one can contemplate in which the Post Office is liable to earn any substantial sums in foreign currency. Therefore, the payment

of foreign currency will not fall on the Post Office but on the Exchequer.
This is a peculiar form of borrowing. Indeed, is not the Post Office endangering the credibility of this country if we are borrowing on the security of the telephone service and similar assets? This is really Government borrowing and I see no point in our discussing it in terms of Post Office borrowing. In any event, how will the Post Office be able to repay these sums out of its foreign currency earnings?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, because they enable me to reply that the Post Office spends about £5½ million abroad each year. This is expected to be continuing expenditure. There is, for example, Post Office investment in Intertel and various submarine systems. It is, therefore, appropriate that the Post Office should be able to borrow abroad, as is suggested in the Amendment. The Corporation Bill benefit in being able to borrow abroad at rates of interest lower than those at present applicable in the United Kingdom.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 108, in page 38, line 12, at end insert:
Provided that the total amount of such borrowings outstanding at any time shall not exceed ten times the net average annual earnings of foreign currency of the Post Office over the previous three years.
This Amendment bears strongly on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) on the last Amendment in that the Post Office should have foreign earnings to pay for its borrowing abroad. My proposal would require the Post Office to have at least one-tenth of the amount that it borrows in foreign earnings.
The Postmaster-General said that the Post Office at present spends about £5½ million a year abroad. Such a statement does not add strength to his claim that it should be able to borrow abroad, for the only possible justification for this sort of bogus commercial borrowing is that the concern is a large earner of foreign exchange, like the two air corporations. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to pretend that the running


up of a bill abroad of £5½ million is a commercial ground for allowing the Post Office to borrow foreign exchange.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, said, if the Government wish to borrow abroad, they should do so in their own name and not in the name of a nationalised industry such as the Post Office. This stupid pretence at commercialism should not be allowed, particularly at a time when the country is in such a financial mess.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 53

RATING IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 112, in page 49, line 21, after 'for', insert 'the purposes of'.—[Mr. Joseph Slater.]

Clause 65

OBLIGATION OF SECRECY

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 56, line 2, after "provision", insert "for another".
This Amendment is linked to the change which we have already considered to Clause 7(1)(c). In this case, as in that, the purpose is to make the wording of the Clause as precise as possible. This is particularly desirable in the present case, because penal sanctions are involved.
The opportunity has also been taken to improve on the protection Clause 65 will give to the data of N.D.P.S. customers by adding the words "or services connected therewith." These words will protect, for example, information to which N.D.P.S. staff may get access in the course of feasibility studies, or other ancillary activities of N.D.P.S. which are not strictly data processing services.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 114, in line 2, leave out from third 'of' to end of line 3 and insert
'data processing services or services connected therewith'.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Clause 84

INTERPRETATION OF PART III

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 116, in page 65, line 13, at end insert "by post".
In Committee the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) queried the width of the definition of "mail-bag" in the Clause. He wondered whether it might include, for instance, a Post Office worker's tool chest. We have had another look at this and think that the definition will be improved by the addition of the words in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 117, in line 45, at end insert:
(3) Any reference in this Part of this Act to data processing shall be construed as including a reference to the storage and retrieval of information.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Clause 87

LICENSING OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Mr. Hay: I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 68, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section, this section shall not apply to the Post Office, the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority.
(5) This section shall apply to the operation by the Post Office of a system of distributing programmes whether in sound or vision or both of domestic entertainment.
Clause 87 deals with the situation where a programme distribution system is to be run or is being run. It provides that if what is put over this distribution system is a programme of an educational or entertainment nature, it is prohibited, except—and this is the effect of subsection (4)—where it is the Post Office, the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. which is the organisation that puts it out.
One would naturally expect the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to be exempted from this prohibition of putting out programmes of an educational or entertainment nature over the wire, because that is what they do in any event. They have their land links from the studios to the various transmitting stations. But we also see there the words "the Post Office".
I put down the Amendment really to obtain from the Postmaster-General some statement about the intention of the Post Office. Is it the intention that the Post Office will be able, in competition with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., to run a programme distribution system, consisting of entertainment material, to the homes of individuals?
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that, if that was what the Post Office sought to do, it would not have the exemption that subsection (4) gives. This is a probing Amendment in many ways, and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would say what is the intention of the Post Office. Does the Corporation intend to put out programmes originated by itself, perhaps in its own studios, over the wire to the homes of individuals?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am all in favour of the diversification of Post Office activities, but I should not go as far as is suggested in the hon. Gentleman's probing Amendment. I assure him that the Post Office Corporation would not want to duplicate or triplicate the services being provided by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. by originating entertainment programmes of its own.
If the hon. Gentleman were to press the Amendment, which I do not believe he is anxious to do, it would affect the services, such as Dial-a-disc and the test match scores, which the Post Office now provides. It may be possible in the future for these services to be provided on a public vision phone service, but I do not believe that the Corporation will want to go further than that and provide entertainment on the lines of the B.B.C., and I therefore willingly give the assurance asked for.

Mr. Hay: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 121

MEANING OF "POSTAGE" AND "POSTAGE STAMP"

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 119, in page 86, line 27, leave out "means postage charged" and insert:
(except in the expression 'duties of postage'), means postage chargeable".
This is a drafting Amendment. The expression "duties of postage" occurs in Clause 118. The reference there is to postage charged by the Postmaster-General, not by the new Corporation.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

CLASSES OF ASSETS TO BE HELD BY THE POST OFFICE TO MATCH ITS DEBTS TO ITS BANKING CUSTOMERS

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 124, in page 98, line 37, leave out second 'of' and insert 'to'.
This is a correction, and I rather regret that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is not in his place to see that we sometimes correct mistakes.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

ADAPTATIONS OF ENACTMENTS AND ORDER IN COUNCIL CONSEQUENTIAL ON THE ASSUMPTION BY THE NEW AUTHORITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC BUSINESS OF FUNCTIONS EXERCISED AND PERFORMED BEFORE THE APPOINTED DAY BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 125, in page 104, line 38, after 'been', insert 'at any time'.

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 108, line 38, leave out 'immediately before' and insert 'at the beginning of'.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain, for a mere innocent who is not a professional in these matters, exactly why this can be only a drafting Amendment. It means the same. Why is it necessary to change the words? If it means something different, why have we got it?

Mr. Joseph Slater: It makes the position clearer than it was in the first place.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 127, in page 123, line 14, leave out 'the next following paragraph' and insert
'paragraph 91 of this Schedule'.
This is a correction.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 128, in page 123, line 26, at end insert:


90A. As from the appointed day, the reference to the Postmaster General in section 2(5) of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Act 1969 (which, amongst other things, empowers local authorities to make arrangements with him for him to issue licences and collect duty under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 on their behalf) shall be construed as referring to the authority.
This is a new paragraph. It is a straightforward adaptation of a reference to the Postmaster-General in the Vehicle and Driving Licences Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7

SETTLEMENT OF FINANCIAL MATTERS OUTSTANDING ON THE APPOINTED DAY

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 129, in page 144, line 47, leave out from 'in' to end of line and insert:
subparagraph (1)(b), (c) or (d) above'.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 130, in page 145, line 18, leave out 'Post Office' and insert
department of the Postmaster General'.
Again this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move Amendment No. 131, in page 147, line 36, leave out 'Acts' and insert 'Act 1965'.

This is a correction.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as there appears to be a large number of correcting and drafting Amendments, would it be possible to put them en bloc in order to save time? Otherwise we shall be here till midnight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I understand that the right hon. Gentleman intended to make such a proposition. If the House agrees, I approve.

Mr. Stonehouse: I should like to respond to that very sensible suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and I propose that as all the remaining Amendments on the Paper are similar in character—either drafting or corrections—we should take them all together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To keep the record straight, I propose to put the Amendments to each Schedule.

Schedule 8

OBSOLETE, &C., ENACTMENTS CEASING TO HAVE EFFECT

Amendments made: No. 132, in page 153, line 45, at end insert:


7 Edw. 7. c. cxxxi.
The Birkenhead Corporation Water Act 1907.
Section 23.

No. 191, in page 154, that lines 31 to 33 be transferred to the end of line 5 on page 155.

No. 133, in page 156, line 21, at end insert:


1 &amp; 2 Geo. 5.
The Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Act 1911.
Section 26.

No. 220, in page 158, line 43, at end insert:


5 &amp; 6 Geo. 5. c. lxxiii.
The Metropolitan Water Board Act 1915.
Section 23.

No. 134, in line 45, at end insert:


7 &amp; 8 Geo. 5. c. xx.
The Bristol Waterworks Act 1917.
Section 40(3).

No. 135, in page 160, line 19, at end insert:


11 &amp; 12 Geo. 5. c. xxiv.
The Sutton District Waterworks Act 1921.
Section 18.

No. 136, in line 23, at end insert:


11 &amp; 12 Geo. 5. c. lxxxiv.
The South Essex Waterworks Act 1921.
Section 48.

No. 137, in line 27, at end insert:


11 &amp; 12 Geo. 5. c. cxv.
The Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Act 1921.
Section 38.

No. 138, in page 164, line 7, at end insert:


18 &amp; 19 Geo. 5. c. lxxix.
The South Essex Waterworks Act 1928.
Section 48.

No. 139, in page 167, line 19, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 67(4)'.—[Mr. Joseph Slater.]

Schedule 9

GENERAL TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 140, in page 173, line 12, at end insert:
'as from the appointed day'

No. 141, in page 174, line 18, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.

No. 142, in line 20, after 'shall', insert:
',as from the appointed day,'.

No. 143, in page 178, line 29, after 'shall', insert ', as from that day,'.

No. 144, in page 179, line 33, leave out from 'order' to 'under'.

No. 145, in line 35, after '1914', insert:
'which is effective at the appointed day'.

No. 192, in page 180, line 13, leave out second 'or'.

No. 193, in line 13, at end insert:
'( ) paragraph 13, 15 or 18 of Part III of Schedule 9 to the London Government Act 1963 or byelaws made under paragraph 6 of that Part of that Schedule; or'.

No. 146, in page 181, line 24, leave out from 'regulations' to 'under' in line 25.

No. 147, in line 25, at end insert:
'which are effective at the appointed day'.

No. 148, in line 30, leave out 'in force immediately before' and insert 'effective at'.

No. 149, in line 32, leave out from 'regulations' to 'under' in line 33.

No. 150, in line 34, after '1962' insert:
'which are effective at the appointed day'.

No. 151, in line 37, leave out 'in force immediately before' and insert 'effective at'.

No. 152, in page 182, line 40, leave out 'at' and insert 'immediately before'.

No. 153, in page 183, line 37, at end insert 'for'.

No. 154, in page 185, line 12, leave out '(5)' and insert '(6)'.

No. 155, in line 22, at end insert 'or (3)'.

No. 156, in line 34, leave out 'in' and insert:
'they have for the purposes of'.

No. 157, in line 37, leave out '(5)' and insert '(6)'.

No. 158, in page 186, line 28, leave out '10' and insert '12'.

No. 159, in page 191, line 38, at beginning insert:
'Notwithstanding paragraph 82 of Schedule 4 to this Act,'.

No. 160, in page 192, line 4, at beginning insert:
'Notwithstanding paragraph 82 of Schedule 4 to this Act,'.

No. 161, in line 35, leave out from 'C' to 'occurs' in line 36.

No. 162, in line 43, leave out 'said Act of' and insert 'Land Commission Act'.

No. 163, in line 47, leave out from 'E' to 'occurs' in line 1 in page 193.

No. 164, in page 193, line 14, leave out 'Case referred to in that Table' and insert:
'of the cases distinguished as Cases A to F in the Table in section 27(2) of the Land Commission Act 1967'.

No. 165, in line 22, leave out 'of the said table'.

No. 166, line 23, leave out 'thereof'.

No. 167, in line 27, leave out 'the said'.

No. 168, in line 40, at end insert:
'and "Case C", "Case E" and "Case F" have the same meanings respectively as in Part III of the Land Commission Act 1967'.

No. 169, in page 195, line 39, leave out 'on' and insert 'as from'.

No. 170, in page 196, line 32, after 'Act', insert '1962'.

No. 171, in line 37, after 'certificate', insert 'of the Postmaster General certifying'.

No. 172, in line 38, leave out 'the Postmaster General' and insert 'him'.—[Mr. Joseph Slater.]

Schedule 10

SPECIAL TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS AND REGISTERED DESIGNS.

Amendments made: No. 226, in page 199, line 29, after 'force', insert 'by'.

No. 227, in line 33, leave out first 'upon'.

No. 228, in line 45, leave out 'with' and insert 'to'.

No. 229, in page 200, line 14, leave out from 'If' to 'under' in line 17 and insert:
'an obligation of the department of the Postmaster General incurred under section 46(5) of the Patents Act 1949 to give a notification


or furnish information to a person has not been fulfilled before the appointed day, the Post Office shall, on that day, become'.

No 174, in line 19, after 'shall', insert 'on and after that day'.

No. 175, in line 21, leave out 'the appointed' and insert 'that'.

No. 176, in page 203, line 29, after 'day', insert 'being use'.

No. 177, in line 30, after 'Office', insert 'and made'.

No. 230, in page 206, line 42, leave out 'with' and insert 'to'.

No. 231, in page 207, line 12, leave out from 'If' to 'under' in line 16 and insert
'an obligation of the department of the Postmaster General incurred under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 1 to the Registered Designs Act 1949 to give a notification or furnish information to a person has not been fulfilled before the appointed day, the Post Office shall, on that day, become'.

No. 179, in line 17, after 'shall', insert ', on and after that day,'.

No. 180, in line 19, leave out 'the appointed' and insert 'that'.

No. 232, in line 31, leave out 'that' and insert 'the appointed'.

No. 233, in page 208, line 34, leave out third 'the'.

No. 181, in page 210, line 27, after 'day', insert ', being use'.

No. 182, in line 28, after 'Office', insert 'and made'.—[Mr. Joseph Slater.]

Schedule 11

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

Amendments made: No. 183, in page 229, line 36, at end insert:


31 &amp; 32 Vict. c. cxxviii.
The Portsmouth Camber Quays Act 1868.
In section 23, the words from 'nor of any ship' to 'Postmaster General'.

No. 184, in line 38, at end insert—


32 &amp; 33 Vict. c. lxv.
The Cricksea Bridge Act 1869.
In section 32, the words from 'or for any horse or carriage' to 'guarding the same'.





33 &amp; 34 Vict. c. lxv.
The Cawood Bridge Act 1870.
In section 53, the words from 'or for any horse or carriage' to 'guarding the same'.

No. 185, in line 40, at end insert—


34 &amp; 35 Vict. c. xxxii.
The Clayhithe Bridge Act 1871.
In section 42, the words from 'or for any horse or carriage' to 'guarding the same'.


36 &amp; 37 Vict. c. xii.
The Shrewsbury (Kingsland) Bridge Act 1873.
In section 31, the words from 'or for any horse, beast' to 'guarding the same'.

No. 186, in page 245, line 18, leave out 'order' and insert 'scheme'.

No. 187, in line 40, leave out 'order' and insert 'scheme'.

No. 188, in page 246, line 2, leave out 'order' and insert 'scheme'.—[Mr. Joseph Slater.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am sure that the House would not wish me to delay it long at this stage because we have had many Sittings on this Bill. We have had debates on the general principles involved, and we have also had many opportunities to discuss various Amendments. But the House would not want to lose this opportunity of saying again that we regard this as a very important Bill indeed, setting up a new public authority which will be running the traditional Post Office services that have been the responsibility heretofore of a Department of State.
The first Postmaster-General was appointed in 1660 by Charles II, some 306 years ago. Since that time there has been a progressive development of the postal services of Britain, and perhaps the most dramatic improvement in the last century were the Rowland Hill reforms of 1840. The postal service has developed still further since then, and is now recognised as being, if not the best, one of the best in the whole world.
There has also been development of other services of the Post Office since the passing of the Telegraph Act, 1869. There has been frequent reference in


our debates to the extension of the services of the Post Office following the passing of that Act.
The Post Office today has a huge investment programme. A total of £2,000 million is to be spent in the five years from 1968 to 1973. This is a dramatic programme, which will involve the expansion of the telephone service by about 50 per cent. in five years, and will provide for the provision of new postal buildings and the development of new systems such as post codes. It also involves the improvement of buildings so that our staff can have better conditions in which to work.
In addition to the traditional services of the Post Office, we have the development of the Giro service, which was established last October and is growing fairly well. It now has over 100,000 accounts, and, apart from social security payments, is achieving about 400,000 transactions a week.
We also have the national data processing service, which provides valuable services for the Post Office and, in competition with other providers of similar services, is spreading its wings to provide services for firms outside the G.P.O.
All these services will provide the new Post Office corporation with very big responsibilities, and I believe that on this Third Reading the House would want to extend to all Post Office staff, in whatever grade they may be employed, best wishes as they go into the new situation.
This morning I attended the conference of the Union of Post Office Workers in Bournemouth. I had the opportunity of speaking about the opportunities the new Corporation will provide to the rank and file staff, and the trade union representatives responded very well. Doubts have been expressed about some of the provisions, which are now subject to detailed negotiations between the staff representatives and myself. I believe that the staff as a whole, individually and collectively, recognise that as a separate commercial body the Post Office will provide increasing opportunities to the staff, both management and rank and file, to respond to the needs of the customer, to live up to the public service monopoly responsibilities it has, and to develop and expand, with the advantage of the new technologies, a wider communications

system in Britain which will be of immense advantage to our economy.
I believe that the Bill is welcomed by both sides of the House.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: All of us on this side of the House would want to join in the good wishes the Postmaster-General expressed for the future of all those who work in the Post Office and who will be moving into the new Corporation.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the felicitous way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House. He has done so with invariable politeness and courtesy, but also with a certain amount of obtuseness. We applaud his manner, if not always his matter.
While we offer the right hon. Gentleman our congratulations, that does not mean that we agree with all that he has done in the Bill, or that we agree with all that is in it at the end.
It was a fairly marginal decision, I imagine, not to oppose this Bill on Second Reading, and I am afraid that our doubts then have been increased by what has happened in Committee. Our doubts were that this Bill was just the same old model, setting up the same old nationalised monopoly without any innovations at all. It was still the 1945 model, or possibly even the 1933 model of London Transport.
We do not believe that that is the right way to organise industry in this present day, and we thoroughly regret that such a vast, monstrous, amorphous monopoly should have been set up, and that the Postmaster-General should have been so adamant, so dogmatic and so doctrinaire in resisting all our well-meaning efforts to improve the Bill and to improve the Corporation by tidying up the monopoly here and there and introducing elements of competition.
There is one point which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, or the Assistant Postmaster-General would deal with. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) asked towards the end of our debate in Standing Committee
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the P.I.B. report is likely to be ready? Is he aware that by the time the Bill reaches Third Reading the Committee will expect him to be in a position to make a statement on the subject?


The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I hope that the report will be out by the end of the month. I will, of course, consider what can be said on Third Reading" [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th March, 1969; c. 1170.]
I hope that this important point on salaries for the new Corporation will be dealt with before we say goodbye to this Bill.
There is a great deal in the Bill with which we agree, and a great deal with which we do not agree, but we certainly give the Corporation all good wishes for the future.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I know that one or two of my colleagues on this side of the House are spending a week at Bournemouth, where they seem to have had a pleasant start to their annual conference, judging by the reports which have appeared of yesterday's meeting.
I should like to compliment my right hon. Friend and the Assistant Postmaster-General upon the way in which they have dealt with some of the critics on their own side of the House. I think they have been extremely helpful and that this is a better Bill than it was when it went into Committee, certainly so far as the powers given to the Corporation for manufacturing are concerned. This is a triumph for common sense at top level, and I am delighted to be able to say that.
I am only sorry that more of my colleagues on this side do not appreciate the significance of the decision that has been made, but perhaps that is inevitable because this has not been too controversial a Bill. We know there are one or two matters outstanding—superannuation for example—which are the subject of negotiations by the staff organisations, but I think it would be wrong to let the Bill go through on Third Reading without issuing a challenge to the new Corporation.
I welcome the setting up of the Corporation, but it can be welcomed provided only that top level management realises what we have done for them here in retaining the monopoly powers and giving them the opportunity to be commercial in the best sense of the word—in the sense of being able to go

out and look for and take advantage of opportunities to extend the field of public ownership. I think this is the significance of the Bill.
It is interesting to note that we have extracted one or two serious commitments from hon. Members opposite as to what horrible fate would befall this important public enterprise if this country should ever be unfortunate enough to have a Conservative Government. I think there is also a challenge to the new Corporation in the field of industrial relations. It has the remarkable opportunity, in an industry free from any major strike over many years, to set up a pattern for industrial relations in private enterprise. We are a bit weak on the consumer side. But this is an argument which should take place on the benches opposite. There is something in the argument of hon. Members opposite that perhaps this is an outdated form of public enterprise simply because we have been so engaged on other things that we have not applied the constructive minds which we undoubtedly possess to some of these important problems, such as what we should put in the place of Parliamentary control.
With these reservations, and while issuing a challenge to the Corporation and the labour and trade union movement, I welcome the setting up of the Corporation and wish it every success.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Hay: The Postmaster-General told us that the first Postmaster-General was appointed by King Charles II. Possibly in the history of his office no more obdurate man has occupied the post than the right hon. Gentleman. Throughout the Committee and Report proceedings, virtually no concession has been made by the right hon. Gentleman on any matter of substance. I understand that it is normal, because we try to have civilised habits in the House, to pay compliments to the Minister on having got such a massive Bill as this through all its stages in the House of Commons. However, I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more forthcoming on some of the genuine points which we made.
We have learnt a lot about the Post Office during the Report stage. We have learnt a lot about the Bill. We have learnt some remarkable things about the


draftsman's mind. We have learnt that he is almost genitive mad. We have had the opportunity of plumbing the depths of "a subsidiary of its". We have discussed what is meant by
in the event of a dispute's arising".
I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to look again at some of the points of plain bad English which do not belong to the expertise of drafting. I made a plea earlier on an entirely different matter, and I will not go over that ground again, but I make an earnest plea to the right hon. Gentleman, as a non-technician and a non-lawyer but as a person who obviously understands and appreciates the English language, to have another look at some of these drafting points.
We have learnt that the Post Office Savings Bank has most of the attributes of a bucket shop. We have obtained a remarkable amount of information about the way in which the Post Office Savings Bank is run and the very limited powers of discretion of those in charge of it. When we move to the benches opposite, we shall have to consider the powers and duties of the bank because there are millions of people who have the erroneous impression that it is a good thing and is safe. That is wrong. We know from our debates on the Post Office Savings Bank that that is a wrong impression—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members below the Gangway who are making noises were not present for those debates. I recommend that they read in HANSARD what was said and the very frail arguments put forward from the Government Front Bench against our Amendments.
I come to the main point. Today the Postmaster-General has said that there is a clear division of opinion, or, as he put, of philosophy, between the two sides of the House. He has stood at the Dispatch Box as a sort of latter-day St. George in shining armour to defend the great monopoly of the Post Office from the dragon of private enterprise. We do not regard it as a dragon. The monopoly which is not only being transferred by the Bill to the new Corporation, but widely extended—and, whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, the fact is that there is a substantial extension of the monopoly in the Bill—is not in the public interest.
I have this evening asked myself the same question time and again as I listened to the Postmaster-General defending the monopoly: would he say the same things if this were a privately-owned monopoly? The answer, of course, is that he would not. It is simply that he thinks that there is some intrinsic virtue in the fact that this is a publicly-owned monopoly, but all the wrong things that a monoply can do, whether publicly or privately owned, are there. The same injustices can be wreaked upon individuals; the same blindness to grievances can be there.
None of the things that the Postmaster-General has told us in the course of these debates has satisfied me that the new Corporation will be any better than the present Post Office, or any better than any of the other nationalised industries. It will continue to be underwritten with public money. It will not be able to take full advantage of the benefits of private competition which could have come about if the Government had not been so insistent upon preserving the monopoly free of any taint of private participation and of allowing any reasonable competition from private sources.
An action has been fought, successfully of course with the temporary majority on the Government side, by the Postmaster-General to ensure that the monopoly should remain unchallenged, but it is something which the Opposition, when we have the opportunity, and it may not be too long ahead, will have once more to look at. I hope that this great monopoly will then be made much more susceptible to public opinion, because I do not believe that public opinion today is satisfied with the services given by the Post Office in all its branches and would prefer some opportunity to be given for an alternative type of many of those services.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) had ploughed his way through the Committee stage of the Bill, as some of his colleagues did, he would not have made that speech. His colleagues became fully aware that my right hon. Friend and his colleague were treating the Opposition's proposals seriously, that my right


hon. Friend was giving every consideration to their points of view and answering them in great detail. The general nature of the hon. Member's argument would have been somewhat modified if he had spent that time on detail in Committee. Some of his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are shaking their heads, but there is not much enthusiasm in their shakes.
My enthusiasm for the Bill is somewhat qualified. I have never disguised the fact that I am not enthusiastic about public corporations. I still favour direct control by a Government Department and I have made it clear throughout that I regret that the Government are departing from that principle. However, some measures have been introduced, which we hope will work out in practice, to retain an element of the public accountability which is so necessary in a corporation of this size.
Charles II has come into the debate a good deal. It was Charles himself who said that he was an unconscionable time adying, and it may be that my right hon. Friend, when he can disengage himself from his Parliamentary Private Secretary, will realise that he has been an unconscionable time a-dying, but that, until now, he has been doing it in a gracious manner, as Charles II managed to do. I congratulate him on the manner in which he has conducted the obsequies on this part of the life of the Post Office. I join with others in wishing the Post Office a full new life. I hope that it will take advantage of the opportunities which will be placed before it and that it will never lose sight of the strong traditions of public service which have always been characteristic of the Post Office but that it will carry them over into its new life.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I should add a word in recognition of what the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General have done to contribute to our debates at all stages. They showed great courtesy and patience, and although I do not agree with everything they said, their personal conduct of the Bill has helped to get it through in what must be a record time for a Measure so fat in paper and meat. It is a Socialist Bill and a nationalisation Bill and I do not

want to argue the principal merit which it will find in the eyes of hon. Members opposite. It was, however, a little tactless of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) to claim more concessions than this side. I have a nasty feeling that he may be right. It would have been a more formal and pleasant action if he had just omitted to say that on Third Reading. Even with the fact that this is a nationalisation Statute, it is depressing how little progress has been made since the 1945 corporations in setting up a nationalised industry. Although the Postmaster-General made some small progress towards identifying costs and reimbursing them when uncommercial loads were put on the Corporation, he did not carry his conversion as far as I would have liked.
We are creating one of the largest concerns in this country which is beyond shareholder and market control and is a monopoly.
I go some way with the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) in wondering, if we did not have Parliamentary control and responsibility, who would control this new industrial giant. I would have preferred it broken up into small component parts—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): On Third Reading we can discuss only what is in the Bill and not what one would like to see.

Mr. Ridley: I have only a few words more to say and I promise I shall not stray. I feel that in the Bill we have not sufficiently strict audit rules and rules for the general conduct of the business from top to bottom. Much more thought is necessary in future to amend these Corporations if they are to go on in our lives, which I hope they will not.
Having said that, I join other hon. Members in good wishes. I was going to say "God bless all who sail in her", but that might be the wrong phrase. I think, however, that the Postmaster-General might break a bottle of champagne. To those who work in the Post Office I wish the best of good fortune and luck in the difficult years to come.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I have been with this Bill from the start. It was introduced when I went into the Post Office in 1964. As I said on Second Reading,


it takes us back to 1931 when Mr. Clem Attlee introduced the idea and it became Labour Party policy. It has taken at least 38 years to bring this about, and I am delighted that we have at last reached this stage.
I should like to pass on my thanks and appreciation to hon. Members on both sides for the way that they have dealt with the Bill, not only on Second Reading but in Committee. As the Minister responsible for the Bill my right hon. Friend has carried it through in a manner which anyone would find difficult to equal. I wish the Bill God speed.

11.21 p.m.

Captain Orr: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the Assistant Postmaster-General, because it allows me to pay tribute to him. As he said, he was interested in this Bill long before it was published. His work in the Post Office is well known. He has brought a great deal of knowledge to it. During the Committee stage he became ill and we were extremely pleased to see how quickly he recovered. We hope that his good health continues for many years.
I join with my hon. Friends who have complimented the Postmaster-General. He has been extremely courteous throughout. He has given the impression of listening intently to what was said, and if nothing terribly positive came out we were forced to accept it in good part because of the pleasant smile with which he turned us down. Throughout our discussions we had occasion to express our suspicions of what the new Corporation might do under its new powers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey to the devoted public servants who form the staff of the Post Office that nothing said was meant to be a reflection upon them.

Mr. William Molloy: Then why say it?

Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, for even a brief moment, he would understand that it is one thing to object to monopoly and arbitrary powers being given to a group of people for all time, and quite another to attack the character and the ability of the people occupying positions in that monopoly. Even the meanest intelligence

should be able to see that. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it plain that we regard the public servants in the Post Office as being among the highest and best in our public service. They do a good job, and we wish them well in their move to the new Corporation.
We ought to put on record that we think that this is a bad Bill, which has not been fundamentally improved in Committee. If anything it has deteriorated. I do not think that the general public realise what an historic and sad occasion this is. We are now saying goodbye to a Bill which deprives our constituents of the right to ask Parliamentary Questions through us. No longer can they come to their Member of Parliament and ask why a telephone kiosk is not supplied at a certain crossroads. No longer can they come to their Member of Parliament and ask him to write to the Postmaster-General about why there has been an unconscionable delay with the telephone. No longer can they come with their problems concerning the Post Office or the telephone service and expect their Member of Parliament to ask the Minister about it.
In this respect I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). He has always been against the Bill root and branch, and so have I. It is a pity that the hon. Member and I cannot be Tellers in the Division on Third Reading, but I do not think there would be much future in that. Anyway, I still think that it is a bad Bill.
There is another reason why it is a bad Bill. After considerable inquiry into the Post Office, it was plain to everybody that something was wrong with the Post Office. That is why we have the Bill. It is a tragedy that what we are doing is consolidating a monopoly, and consolidating it in terms so precise and extensive that it will require major legislation to undo it. It is a retrograde Bill in that respect.
If ever there was a time when one should have attacked monopoly, it was on this great occasion. Unfortunately, we have not succeeded in our arguments in Committee. If anything, the Postmaster-General has, as it were, come clean on the question. He has stated plainly that his intentions are that this monopoly


should be carried by the new Corporation, not subject to Parliamentary questioning from day to day, but carried in its full arbitrary tyranny by the new Corporation. That is his intention as Minister.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be the new Minister of Communications because, if he were, he would undoubtedly encourage the Corporation in that course. It would be more appropriate if he became chairman of the new Corporation. Perhaps he will. I wish him well. I will enjoy coming to see him with my constituents' grievances. I am not sure that they will get much out of it, but at least we will have a pleasant time.
I compliment the right hon. Gentleman and his assistants once more on their courtesy. I cannot wish the Bill well, but I wish the members of the Corporation well. If in future we seek to curb their monopoly, it will still be no reflection on their character or their good faith.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) rightly said that in many respects there was a great deal of agreement about the Bill and also a great deal of disagreement on certain aspects. The Opposition did not feel that they could carry their philosophy to the ultimate end and completely denationalise the Post Office, and I can understand why.
In Committee, a number of hard-hitting things were said, but they were said in good mood and it was understood by both sides that hon. Members sincerely believed in the features of the philosophy that they were advocating. Therefore, I found it somewhat distasteful when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) made his remarks, which I thought were somewhat vulgar, concerning the Post Office Savings Bank and, by inference, the people who work there. He was endorsed in this by his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills).
I would say to those hon. Members frankly that within the Civil Service it is very well known that quite a number of hon. Members opposite have a sort of pathological hatred for civil servants, and they are not slow in indicating it when

the occasion arises. We have had two such occasions here this evening. What was said by the hon. Member for Henley cannot in any way enhance either his status or that of his party. What is more, it could do harm to one of our valuable institutions.
I think that that ought to be said and ought to be on the record, because we have had passed here today remarks which could upset many members of the staff of the Post Office who will be fundamental to making the Corporation a success. I really believe that quite a number of hon. Members opposite, particularly on the Front Bench, though they may not agree with the philosophy of Socialism and with what we would call a move towards Socialism, do want the Corporation to get off to a successful start. I hope that the members of the Post Office staff will disregard some of the remarks made here today, because the majority of this House believe they give of their best.
In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Assistant Postmaster-General on the manner in which they have conducted this Bill through its various stages, and I hope that their efforts will result in a first-class Corporation which will be the pride of this country of ours.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Having now come to the final stage of the Bill, I think it will be generally agreed that we have had very interesting and useful debates on it. I think the Bill has been considerably improved on Report, and that was done because, contrary to what the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said, the Postmaster-General did listen to some of the suggestions made by the Opposition in Committee. I should like to compliment him and the Assistant Postmaster-General on the very able manner in which they have piloted this Bill through its various stages.
This is a case of one monopoly taking over from another, and many people are asking what benefits will accrue to the general public as a result of the changeover. Having listened to most of the debates on Report I must confess that I find it rather difficult to give a straight answer to that question. However, I hope that benefits will accrue.
In this service, the Post Office staff have a very important rôle to play, and at this stage it is fitting that tribute should be paid to the excellent service we receive both from the staffs in the post offices and from the postmen on their rounds. In my part of the country the postmen have very wide rounds to cover, and we greatly admire the efforts they make, even in inclement weather, to deliver the mails.
I would point out to the Postmaster-General that some concern is felt by members of the staff about changes in their pension rates and about retirement proposals. If reference was made to this during Report, I did not hear it, and I should be grateful if we could have some information on this point.
There are, relating to the social side of the Post Office work, a number of questions which are of great concern to scattered rural communities in Scotland. I refer in particular to the telephone kiosks and to television reception. Applications for kiosks in remote areas are often turned down because of the cost. The same applies to television. Many people have installed expensive television sets but are disappointed at being unable to receive the programmes.
It has been stated that the Post Office loses more than £10 million a year through the non-payment of radio and television licence fees. This is a serious state of affairs. I can assure the Postmaster-General that this is not happening in the Highlands of Scotland. The people there are honest and they pay the licence fees even if the reception is not satisfactory. That £10 million would go a long way towards providing the services needed in the outlying areas, and I hope that the Corporation will deal more effectively with the people who do not pay for licences.
The Post Office Users' Councils will have a big job to see that people living in remote areas get the benefit of television. We are trying by every means to persuade people to remain in the remote areas of Scotland and, while they have most other social amenities, television is one which they still lack and for which they are prepared to pay a substantial sum. I hope that the Post Office Users' Council for Scotland will pay particular attention to this. I do not know if the Postmaster-General will

have a say in the setting up of the Council, but if he does I hope that he will appoint a Gaelic-speaking member to safeguard the interests of the language.
I am not pessimistic about the changeover, as are some hon. Members, and, even if they are right in their pessimism, I hope that the Bill will be for the good of Post Office users in general.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I seek the permission of the House to intervene briefly in the debate for a second time. One or two new points have been raised on which I should like to comment.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) asked about the N.B.P.I. report. Since the debates in Committee the report of the N.B.P.I. on salaries for the chairmen and directors of authorities has been received, and I believe that the House is aware of this. I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the appointments to the Post Office Board and the rates that will be paid, but I hope to do so within the next few weeks.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) asked about the pension scheme for the employees of the new authority. This is a matter of detailed negotiation with the staff associations. The Corporation scheme originally envisaged a retirement age of 65 for new staff recruited, although existing staff would have the option of retiring at 60. I have since made a concession in allowing new staff as well as existing staff to take an option, if they so desire, of retiring at 60 on Civil Service terms. I do not wish to debate this at length because these are questions which are currently under examination by the staff associations and on which I am in negotiation with them.
The hon. Member also raised the matter of the Post Office Users' Council for Scotland and suggested that there should be a Gaelic-speaking member. I will, of course, seriously consider this request.
Before we close our proceedings, I should like to pay warm tribute to all the hon. Members who played a part in the Standing Committee proceedings upstairs. There were valuable contributions from both sides of the Committee, and I greatly respect the expertise as well as


the sincerity which were brought to those proceedings. We have also had a number of speakers in the general debate on Report stage who have brought to our proceedings a great deal of experience and sincerity, and I should like to express appreciation to them.
I particularly wish to thank the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central for his remarks, which I greatly appreciate. We regret the absence of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who is abroad, but we appreciate the able way in which he spoke on behalf of the Opposition during the various stages of the Bill.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson) and Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) regret that they could not be with us tonight at this stage of the proceedings as they are attending their union's conference in Bournemouth.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred to the officials, and I should like to thank him warmly for what he said. It was sincerely meant, and I am sure that it will be received with pleasure by the officials in the G.P.O. I would add my thanks to the officials in the reorganisation department of the Post Office who have played a wonderful part in preparing and helping to guide the Bill through all its stages.
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General who has been with this Bill since October, 1964, when he was first appointed to the position which he now holds. He has worked with three of my predecessors, all of whom have played a very valuable part in preparing the Bill. I pay special tribute to the Assistant Postmaster-General for the sterling job he has done throughout these past five years and thank him for his most loyal support. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS)

11.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move,

That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.
This Scheme continues for a further year the fertiliser subsidy which the House has approved regularly since 1952. The current rates of contribution which have been in force since June, 1967, have been amended following the decision at this year's Annual Review to reduce the subsidy by £3 million over the year. Otherwise the Scheme is the same as before. The amount of subsidy continues to be based upon the phosphoric acid and nitrogen content of the fertilisers and the proportion of subsidy to total cost will be approximately the same for each nutrient.
The consumption of fertilisers is still rising and even at the reduced rates the amount which we expect to spend on this subsidy during the coming year will be about £32½ million, an amount similar to the average for the past three years. This level of contribution meets about 22 per cent. of the gross cost of subsidised fertilisers, including compounds, and offers a substantial inducement to farmers to maintain and improve the productivity of their land.
Although prices of fertilisers increased substantially between March, 1957, and January, 1968, I am glad to say they have remained fairly constant since then. In fact, the price of nitrogen, which is the most widely used nutrient, has gone down slightly and it is cheaper now than it was five years ago. The effect of this year's reduction in subsidy will be to increase net prices overall by just over 2½ per cent., or by about 12s. per ton. I do not expect this comparatively small price increase on fertilisers to check the increase in demand.
I am sure that the House will agree that a high rate of fertiliser usage is essential to productivity and that we should continue to foster this by continuing the subsidy for a further year.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: While my hon. Friends are grateful to the Under-Secretary for the limited amount of information he has given, we are somewhat shocked at his apparent complacency and assumption that all is going well. I doubt whether we can agree about that; and unless, when replying to the debate, the hon. Gentleman is able


to provide better explanations about these proposals, we may have to express our concern by calling a Division. We would not normally take such a step on a proposal which conveys new subsidy arrangements, but in this case the House has been treated in a rather cavalier fashion.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to adopt that attitude, but he told us remarkably little. He said that consumption of fertilisers was still rising and that he did not expect the increase of 2½ per cent., or 12s. per ton, to affect consumption. He must supply more information to show on what he bases that assumption.
Hon. Members must consider the background against which this discussion is taking place. We are debating a cut in the fertiliser subsidy. That cut must be related to the Government's general agricultural policy, which it would not be appropriate for us to discuss at this time.

Mr. Buchan: indicated assent.

Mr. Godber: I am not surprised, in view of the feelings which the Government's general agricultural policy has aroused, that the Under-Secretary does not want us to debate it.
However, we must relate this cut in the subsidy to what Ministers have been saying in recent months. For example, last November the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talked of expansion and virtually committed the Government to endorsing the proposals made in the little "Neddy" report on agriculture.
Among the interesting points made in that report on the subject of fertilisers it was said that if we were to realise the targets set in the Government's plan, there would have to be increased expenditure of about £40 million on fertilisers during the five-year period. On 12th November the right hon. Gentleman indicated that, broadly, he accepted those proposals. He must, therefore, have been anticipating a substantial rise in fertiliser consumption. If so, are the Government now saying that that substantial rise—of between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. per year—in fertiliser consumption is to take place against a background of a cut such as this? We are, therefore, debating

whether this determination has any relationship to what the Government have said.
Very little was said in the Annual Price Review White Paper about fertilisers. In the only paragraph on the subject, it was said that fertiliser usage had continued to rise and that, as a result, expenditure on the fertiliser subsidy had gone up. However, it added that it was general policy to reduce the rates of subsidy to contain the subsidy cost. I assumed from that paragraph that the Government were considering the whole question of fertilisers in that Price Review on the same basis as they had looked at the subject in previous years. In other words, the Government were completely ignoring the Minister's undertakings as recently as 12th November that he was taking account of the little "Neddy" report and the proposals therein for increased fertiliser usage.
We have been told nothing about this. Do the Government really expect fertiliser usage to go on increasing on the lines necessary for the full implementation of the little "Neddy" report? If not, how much do they expect that fertiliser usage to go on rising? This is what the House ought to be told tonight and this is what it will need to be told before it can allow the Government to have the Scheme.
If we are being told that the Government are now going back on the pledges of last November and that, concerning fertiliser usage, they are not proposing to implement those proposals, this has very far-reaching implications indeed about their general attitude towards agricultural expansion.
I tell the Under-Secretary and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I assume will participate at a later stage in the debate, that the House must be told more than it was told in that very brief opening statement.
The Under-Secretary said that consumption of fertilisers is still rising. That may be so up to the latest published figures. But can he tell us that he has the assurance of those in the industry that over recent months consumption really has continued to rise? I wonder whether he can. I do not think so, because my information is that farmers are not buying fertilisers to anything like the same extent at present.
I can understand that, after a season like the last one, there would be a setback in the uptake of fertiliser. I should not deny that for a moment. If there has been a steady rise over this period of years, which should be continued, all that should do is to bring it back to a plateau. But if there is a net fall in farmers' orders, as I understand there to have been in recent months, that would indicate a serious state of affairs.
I think that it is tied up with what I was saying earlier, namely, that the Minister gave the farming community to believe that a big expansion programme was under way and he has failed to implement it. At the same time, we know that farmers' incomes are down and, therefore, expenditure on any item—fertilisers or anything else—will be watched very carefully. If they have to pay another 12s. a ton for fertilisers as a result of this cut, it is bound to affect the fertiliser uptake over the coming months. If it affects fertiliser uptake, what will happen to the outturn of agricultural production? We know that there is a close relationship between the fertiliser uptake and the final outturn in a normal year. If there is to be a reduction in the farmers' uptake, how is it possible to contemplate for a moment that those targets in the little "Neddy" proposals, or even the Government's somewhat lower targets, have any possible hope of being realised? This is the matter which should be giving the House concern now, and this is what the Under-Secretary did not begin to face up to.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary: what is the evidence of the last three months' actual purchases of fertilisers by farmers compared with the corresponding three months a year ago? Also, what does he contemplate that this means in terms of crops that are being sown now and are due for harvesting this year?
This has to be related to the tillage acreage, which appears in the March forecasts this year where we see that the amount of cereal sown shows a substantial drop compared with the outturn of June last year. If we have a lower acreage and lower consumption of fertilisers, what hope is there for the

selective expansion programme about which the Minister has talked so glibly, even since the Annual Review came out? The Minister promised many things last November. He has somewhat limited his promises since March of this year, but if, as I believe, the fertiliser position is showing a fall, how can we expect any of the Government's own targets to be achieved?
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address his mind to that when he replies to the debate. I ask him to tell us what the latest information is, and whether this information was available to Ministers when the decision was taken to make this cut at the Price Review. Were the decisions at the Price Review taken, as the Price Review White Paper appears to say, on the normal lines of previous years, that because the fertiliser subsidy had risen again it was to be cut back to roughly the same figure? Or was the decision taken with a real appreciation of what the Minister promised as recently as last November? These are the things about which we ought to be told. We were told none of these things by the Under-Secretary of State.
Without wishing to delay the House unduly, I must tell the Under-Secretary that his statement did not tell the House what it needs to know. We must therefore press the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a lot more information when he replies to the debate. He must re-assure us and the farming community about what the Government really want from farmers, because with the indications of a fall in the use of fertilisers and in tillage acreage, and with the knowledge that the income of farmers is down, set as it is against high borrowing costs for farmers, there is a real danger that farmers may cut back still further in their use of fertilisers and make even more illusory the Government's own targets.
This is one of the worst aspects of the Price Review. In normal circumstances it might have been looked upon as reasonable, but after the promises of last November it has left a bitter taste in the mouths of farmers. The Government must give us far more information before we shall be willing to acquiesce in this Scheme.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I congratulate the Minister in so far as he has reduced these subsidies, and I do not congratulate him in so far as he has left them there at all. I believe that these subsidies are a great mistake, and this is not in the least because I do not believe that public money should be used for supporting agriculture. I think that more should be used if we wish to build up import substitution, but it should be applied at the right place, and that is to the price. When the subsidy has been applied to the price, it is the farmer's job to decide how he most efficiently and economically earns that price.
To take one factor of his expenditure, and to distort the economics of his process by subsidising one factor seems to be, first, treating him like a fool, and, second, bringing about a number of objectional consequences. Here we are picking on the factor of artificial manures, not fertilisers generally. There is no subsidy on the product of the midden. There is simply a subsidy—

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of the products to which this Scheme gives a subsidy is North African phosphate, which is a natural product? What is artificial about North African phosphate?

Mr. Paget: Whether it is dug out of the ground or produced in a chemical process does not make the slightest difference. What is different is to take something which is artificial to the process of agriculture and add it to the land—something quite different from what is produced naturally by cattle. I am not saying that there is not a rôle for artificial manures. Whether they are dug out of the ground in North Africa or made in a factory, it does not make the slightest difference. Of course, there is a rôle for artificial manures, in the same way as there is a rôle for natural manures. One has to weigh the advantages of using more manures—which I call natural because they come from the farming process—and using less of what I call artificial manures, because that is the usual name used for them. These are perfectly good economic decisions to be made by the farmer. Why distort the process by giving a subsidy to one and

not to the other? This has always been my criticism of this kind of thing.
Let us have the full price support put at the price end. Then let the farmer make up his own mind how best he earns the price that he is offered. Do not distort the process by subsidising one factor chosen arbitrarily, which may in one instance need expanding, and of which in another instance there is too much. In my district we have had a good deal too much of the use of artificials in view of the texture of the soil. It has been taken too far in too many districts. This results largely from the absurd price of the land. Anybody who buys land at about £350 an acre—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman had better relate his remarks a little more closely to the Scheme, which deals with fertiliser subsidies.

Mr. Paget: If you are a little patient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall relate my remarks precisely to the Scheme in a moment. When land costs £350 an acre, nobody can buy it for any reason—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member must obey the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Paget: I am, with respect, doing so, and a little patience on the part of the Chair would lead him to the conclusion that the interruption was perhaps unnecessary.
I am saying that where the land is bought at this price, it has got to be ploughed up in order to get the money back. Then, in order to get that money back, it is flogged by putting more and more of this fertiliser into it. After about six or seven years of white crops which are extracted in these circumstances, this excessive use of fertiliser has soured up the land. We have seen many instances of that sort in my part of the country.
Therefore, I hope the Ministry will rethink this question of picking out artificials as a special factor for subsidy, and instead apply support where it ought to be applied.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on this question, although I can


think of several occasions in the winter when I have been very glad of any excuse not to follow him in another sphere.
I am one of those who, like the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, would like to see this Scheme phased out. I should like to see the value of the fertiliser subsidy added to the end product which the farmer gets from the market, so that the farmer gets a proper price for what he produces, instead of an artificial price for the cost of production.
One thing which worries me about the fertiliser Scheme is the amazing business of actually buying the fertilisers. Many big farmers are buying their fertilisers at a much lower price than that at which some of the local merchants can supply them. There seems to be such a vast discrepancy in the prices charged and the discounts given, and the various ways of invoicing fertilisers through to different farmers, that I doubt very much whether the Scheme works satisfactorily.
If one can have fertiliser subsidies for growing mushrooms, under paragraph 3, why is not the Scheme extended to forestry? In all good forestry practice today, particularly on the poorer lands that we are rapidly being encouraged to plant, it is normal to put two ounces of fertiliser on a plant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In discussing a Scheme of this kind one can discuss only what is in the Scheme, and not suggest extending it to something like forestry, as the hon. Gentleman has done.

Mr. Kimball: I can explain how forestry comes into this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Most of us who have both forestry enterprises and a farm are so incensed that the subsidy is not received for fertilisers for forestry that they are merely invoiced through the farm. I suggest that this is a fairly common practice, and there seems to be an enormous leakage in the Scheme. It would be far better to accept that this is done. One is advised to fertilise one's trees, and the most judicious way of buying one's fertiliser for forestry is through the agricultural grants schemes. It would be far more advantageous to the nation to have a subsidy for trees rather than mushrooms and the like.
I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said about the falling use of fertilisers. There is a lack of confidence in the future of farming, and a drop in the tillage acreage and in the use of fertilisers are the first signs of this. One starts to squeeze one's fertiliser bill at such times.
I hope that the Minister replying to the debate will say something about the veiled threat of failure to pay one's Agricultural Training Board levy being connected with the fertiliser subsidy. I can see nothing about that in the Scheme.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am sorry that we did not have a much more elaborate opening speech. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave us a much more adequate opening speech last year, and made an interesting but contentious winding-up speech, containing some most offensive remarks about an earlier speech by me. I am sure that he has since shuddered at his intemperance and the extravagance of his language. He took the greatest exception to my suggestion that the Price Review White Paper indicated that the usage of fertilisers would be likely to fall. I pointed out that the figure for 1968–69 was estimated at £32 million, whereas in the previous year it had been forecast to be £32·4 million. He explained that this was:
… because figures are rounded off in giving estimates, which is the normal method. The figure is about the same as last year, when it was £32·4 million … there is likely to be an increased use of fertilisers, as there has been in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1968; Vol. 764, c. 369.]
But what happened? The subsidy payments for last year and the year before clearly show the figures. Whereas in 1967–68 the fertiliser subsidy came to £33·9 million, the latest forecast for 1968–69 is £32·7 million.
While the rate of subsidy was the same, the amount of the subsidy seems to have dropped by something like 3½ per cent. It must be absolutely clear that fertiliser usage dropped last year, otherwise I cannot think of any other way of explaining why the expenditure by the Government on this subsidy over the year should have dropped by £1·2 million.
I turn to a matter which I have raised many times before. I have for many years been very concerned about the tolerances which are allowed to fertiliser manufacturers on which these subsidies are paid. They are paid on the advertised analysis of individual fertilisers for various plant foods. The tolerance allowed is plus or minus 10 per cent, with a maximum of 1·75 per cent. variation from the advertised analysis.
If one looks at the subsidy being proposed in this Scheme, and one sees what that means in a ton of fertiliser with a maximum deficiency of 1·75 per cent., it means theoretically that a total of 21s. 7d. a ton can be paid out in subsidy for plant nutrients which are not there.
I am not saying for a moment that manufacturers cheat over this. I think the majority—and certainly the big ones—are scrupulous in keeping as close to the advertised analysis as they can. I had the opportunity to go to one of the largest plants in this country, I have seen the check figures that come off and it has proved to me clearly that at that plant the product is very close indeed to the advertised analysis. But there is a strong temptation for the smaller fertiliser mixers to work to the bottom end of the tolerance, and if a manufacturer chooses to do this, certainly the farmer is paying a great deal more for his fertilisers than is really necessary.
I turn now to this year's changed rates, and draw attention to the fact that, according to the figures in the Schedule, the subsidy on nitrogen is reduced by around 11 per cent., and for water-soluble phosphates by 2·6 per cent., whereas the subsidy for insoluble phosphates is increased by 3 per cent.
Why is it that nitrogen has had such a very big reduction in subsidy as opposed to the two grades of phosphates? What advice has the Minister had which has made him decide to hit nitrogen much harder than phosphates? My impression was that over the country much better returns can be obtained by farmers by using nitrogen, and in many cases I think the figures show that a great deal of land has as much residential phosphate in it as is necessary. Why has the Minister taken this very curious step in hammering nitrogen much harder than phosphates? And why is it that the rate of subsidy for basic slag is

virtually unaltered? There is a difference of perhaps 2d. a ton subsidy. This is very little indeed, and it will be generally agreed that the basic slag subsidy remains exactly the same.
I want to know why phosphates—certainly soluble phosphates—have been reduced in compound fertilisers, whereas in basic slag the subsidy on phosphates has been kept on more or less the same level. This is a strange situation, which I do not understand. I wonder if the solution comes in page 3 of "Fertiliser Statistics 1968", which I have read with great interest. In the second paragraph, referring to basic slag, it states:
But there are indications that the general trend of consumption is downwards".
Could it be that the purpose of leaving the subsidy on basic slag the same is to try to boost sales of basic slag? Has there been special pressure from the nationalised steel industry, in which basic slag is an important by-product, on the Government to increase the subsidy for basic slag as opposed to compound fertilisers? This is a strange decision, and I hope that the Minister will say why he has singled out basic slag for special assistance.
The picture concerning the present usage of fertilisers is not wholly satisfactory. The arable areas do not have an ideal rate of usage, but generally it is agreed that it is satisfactory. However, in the grassland areas the picture is very different. Thirty-five per cent. of the acreage in grassland areas gets no nitrogen and 55 per cent. gets less than 40 units, and most of us who know something of the science of grassland management would agree that that was a woefully small figure. Fifty-three per cent. of permanent grassland never sees nitrogen, 56 per cent. gets no phosphates and 66 per cent. gets no potash. This is very unsatisfactory, and it shows what tremendous scope there is on our grassland areas, particularly on permanent grassland, for greater production of commodities for import saving which is so important. The picture is similar, but not anything like as bad, on temporary grassland. We certainly cannot be complacent about the rate of fertiliser usage on permanent grassland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham pointed out that we are debating a cut of about 9 per cent. in the fertiliser subsidy. This is a very big


cut—down by £3 million to about £33 million. Farmers have very severe credit problems, and one fears that the use of fertilisers, particularly of phosphates and potash, will be cut as farmers have to face credit restrictions, as they are doing now. It is a very bad time for the Government to cut the fertiliser subsidy, and perhaps we shall think very seriously of dividing the House on the Scheme.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) regretted that there was a fertiliser subsidy. I would have every sympathy with what they said if farmers were getting a far better return for their products. But, unfortunately, they are getting an extremely low return on their capital and for their efforts. Therefore, they must look to every possible source for some means of maintaining their already small income.
Paragraph 63 of the Price Review White Paper opens with the sentence:
Proper use of fertiliser is essential if expansion is to be achieved with maximum efficiency".
Fertiliser usage has in fact gone on rising".
In other words, farmers are farming with more and more efficiency. Therefore, one might expect that they would get a pat on the back for the use to which they have put their fertilisers. Instead, this year, they have been given a slap in the eye.
The Review states, and the Under-Secretary confirmed, that the subsidy rate is to be reduced by £3 million and so yet again farmers are being castigated for doing what they have been continually urged to do—to employ the latest techniques and increase production and productivity. The subsidy cuts are bound to increase farmers' costs and to affect the future pattern of fertiliser use. There are strong indications that fertiliser use is already beginning to decline.
If fertiliser usage were increasing, I suppose that it might be said that a cut in the subsidy did not matter, or that it was not surprising as increasing use of fertiliser was bound to steady off and, equally, that crops would benefit proportionately less with larger applications.

That may be true, but there are still many areas where fertiliser use is thoroughly inadequate and where it should be encouraged.
The latest figures from the Fertiliser Manufacturers' Association show that in 1966–67, the latest year for which figures are available, the eastern area did best with an average fertiliser usage of 141 units. Wales was worst with an average input of only 66 units and Northern Ireland was second worst with an input of only 67 units. If one could go on the statistics alone, and I appreciate that one cannot do so with agriculture, Wales and Northern Ireland would be seen clearly to require the greatest increase in fertiliser use, but they have not only the lowest use, but the lowest increase in use in the ten years 1956–57 to 1966–67. This is worrying because these areas are mainly grassland areas. If the Minister wants to increase beef production, these are the areas where production on grasslands and uplands must be stimulated and this can be done only by the use of more fertilisers.
The general picture gives greater cause for concern because the areas with the lowest total of plant nutrient applied were the northern area, the south-western area, the West Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland. These are all areas with a greater proportion of grassland and therefore are the areas to which the Minister is bound to look if he expects to achieve his selective expansion programme targets.
These fertiliser subsidy proposals are likely to cut the potential increase in fertiliser use and thus to limit the potential for growth in output, particularly in the areas which I have mentioned, but in the rest of the country, too. I believe that the day is not far removed when the Minister will come to regret what he is now doing.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Hector Munro: My right hon. and hon. Friends have torn the Scheme asunder. I believe that the brevity of the Under-Secretary's introduction of the Scheme showed his lack of conviction that it was right. It is one of the major pieces of false economy in agriculture which the Government have made in recent months. Especially in the present climate, when we naturally want to move to general economies, this is


one which should not take place unless the Government are prepared to move to a new system of agricultural support and to bring in the levy. All hon. Members who have spoken tonight have understood how important are fertilisers to the general farm economy and how the Government have been wrong to discourage the use of lime which must go with fertilisers to get the best results.
There is no doubt that if we are to step up production as the Government say we should, although they do nothing to make it possible in practice, we must see that there is an incentive to the use of fertilisers rather than the disincentive produced in this Scheme.
Farmers realise the value of fertilisers and their prudent use and it is wrong of the Government to discourage their application and not to give farmers the confidence to use their own judgment in the kind of fertilisers they should buy. Like my hon. Friend I am certain that there is a fall in the use of fertilisers. In has reached the levelling off point and is perhaps falling back this spring, and this is particularly the case in grassland management. It is here where the Government have their best opportunity to step up production of beef and mutton. Only about 75 per cent. of temporary grassland is receiving an adequate supply of fertilisers and perhaps less than 50 per cent. of permanent grassland. That is a state of affairs the Government cannot accept with equanimity. They should be encouraging the use of fertilisers here. Farmers have the advice of the colleges of agriculture and of N.A.A.S. but the quickest incentive to getting more fertiliser on the land is to keep the subsidy at its present level or to increase it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the pertinent question of how this reduction measures up to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in November calling for a big increase in agricultural production.
How can we get this expansion without the use of more and more fertilisers? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a straight answer with no more nonsense. We are so used to waffle in his replies. Reading last year's debate, we look forward to his withdrawal of the criticism he made of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) who made the most effective

speech that evening. I hope he will scotch for good and all the rumour that the Training Board levy might be tied up with a reduction of the fertiliser subsidy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would be difficult The hon. Gentleman must talk about fertilisers.

Mr. Monro: The Minister should look at this again and see if he is not working against the best interest of agriculture by reducing the subsidy.
I would like him to deal with the cost of administering the subsidy. The hon. Member sighed when he was asked about that, but he has had two years to think about it. Can he say whether the present system is the most economical, with the supplier filling in part of the form and part of the tear-off receipt and sending it to the farmer to fill in in the original form and another tear-off receipt and sending the two to the nearest office of the Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, and then all those going back to another office?
There is a great deal of postage, some 4d. some 5d. and much office work. Is this the most efficient way to administer the subsidy? How much does it cost, and what has been the increase in costs over the last few years? I cannot welcome the Scheme because it is against the interests of the farmer, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will try to justify its introduction much more than the Under-Secretary did in his opening remarks.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I regard the cut in fertiliser grants as by far the worst feature of the Price Review and I am very disappointed that we have this Scheme before us. It must be clear to anyone with experience of farming that the increase in production in the marginal and hill areas is due chiefly to the sugstantial increase in the use of fertilisers. At one time we used to think we could not go on cropping year after year unless we used farmyard manure. Now we have discovered that the judicious use of lime, phosphates and potash enables us to go from year to year, producing good crops. This is why it is so important to encourage the increased use of fertilisers.
The Parliamentary Secretary and I were colleagues on the Board of Management of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, before coming to this House. The Parliamentary Secretary was Chairman and I was a humble back bencher, but I remember all the things he used to say about encouraging farmers and smallholders in the use of fertilisers. He was right, and tonight I hope he will live up to all the wise things he used to say. I do not know whether the Scheme can be withdrawn, but if it can be it would be a wise move. I would hate to see the House dividing over this important question. We should pull together on this. With these hints to the Parliamentary Secretary, I will await his comments.

12.33 a.m.

Sir John Gilmour: My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) read out the first part of paragraph 65 on page 16 of the Price Review dealing with fertiliser subsidies. I want to go to the end of that paragraph where, after saying that the subsidy is to be reduced by £3 million over the year it goes on:
In their determinations on the commodity guarantees, the Government have made allowance for this reduction.
I wonder whether I could have an explanation of this wording. It would appear that on an ordinary interpretation, having taken down the approved fertiliser subsidy, something extra has been given in the commodity guarantees. This does not appear to have happened. Those farmers who grow sugar beet—and I declare an interest as a sugar beet grower—will receive exactly the same price for their produce.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is interesting to talk about the Price Review, but not on this Scheme.

Sir J. Gilmour: May I point out that in the paragraph dealing with fertiliser subsidies it particularly mentions the reduction and says that this has been taken into account? With respect, I should have thought that the amount of fertiliser subsidy has an effect on the final return that farmers receive for their product.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to be hard. We are not talking about the

farm Price Review, but about the Scheme.

Sir J. Gilmour: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. May I simply ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if the fertiliser subsidy is used in this way, how it can be that the prices are adjusted?
In arriving at the total amount of fertiliser subsidy which is to be paid out this year, which is to be £35 million in spite of the reduction in the amount per ton of the fertiliser subsidy, when taking into account the total returns paid out on the main crops of wheat, barley, oats and potatoes, it is difficult to see how there will be an increase in the total amount to be paid out in fertiliser subsidy when the total guarantees paid out for these crops are to be reduced. This appears to be a contradiction in terms. If the Minister can explain this, I shall be grateful.

12.36 a.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I welcome the opportunity to say a word on this matter, coming as I do from the arable East, where we use probably far more fertiliser per acre than anywhere else. This is a most important matter for my constituency and other constituencies in East Anglia.
I rather agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who is no longer with us, that it would have been far better to have done away with the subsidies and to pay a decent end price. If, however, we are to have this system, of which the fertiliser subsidy is part, I do not feel that in this year, with the Government pressing for an expansion in agriculture, there should have been the cut in subsidies which is set out in the Scheme. It seems quite wrong that this cut in subsidies should have come at the same time as an increase in the price of some of the artificials as well.
I am convinced, not from usual pessimism and not from trying to get at the Government, but because of the weather, that we shall have bad yields this year in many of the crops which need great applications of fertiliser. In my district, we are three or four weeks behind in the drilling of sugar beet and the planting of potatoes, both of which crops need a large amount of these fertilisers. I fear


that the unexhausted value of the remnants of fertilisers for other crops will have been leached out during the bad winter and more fertilisers than usual will be needed.
These fertilisers take more money than practically anything else that one does to the land for these crops. In other words, the application of fertilisers per acre is one of the largest items of expenditure that a farmer has for these two main expensive crops. It is almost impossible at present to obtain credit for fertilisers, and credit is necessary because that is the way farmers have always taken their fertilisers, paying for them after the crop has been harvested.
To me the Scheme, coming at a time when we have been asked to expand, is most extraordinary. But for the fact of preventing farmers from getting any subsidy, I would have hoped that we would show our disapproval of the cut in fertiliser subsidy by voting against the Scheme.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: The Scheme is a very important one and will have a quite profound effect on agriculture. Of that there is no doubt. We did not hear enough from the Under-Secretary in his opening speech of the effects of the Scheme on agriculture. I believe that it could have quite serious effects. The right use of fertilisers is surely the key to success in agriculture. I believe that this will undoubtedly mean that there will be a reduction in the amount of foodstuff which is produced.
This is what I think is wrong about this Scheme—that it is brought forward now; at this time, when the Government are seeking to expand agriculture, they bring in a Scheme to reduce subsidies. There is no doubt in my mind that this will mean a reduction in the amount of fertiliser used, and consequently production from the farms will be reduced. Therefore, this Scheme will have serious effects on agriculture and will work against what the Government are trying to do—or ought to be trying to do—and that is, increasing agricultural production.
I notice that there is nothing about lime. It may, perhaps, in a sense, be out of order to make the point, but one cannot use fertilisers without lime, and

the reduction which is going on at present in the use of lime could have serious effects on the use of fertilisers.
I notice, too, that paragraph 2 talks about "an association of farmers". It may be, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, that with difficulties of credit, and of buying fertilisers—difficulties which will be greater with the reduction in subsidy—farmers, to finance the use of fertilisers, will take advantage of associations of farmers, that they will bulk their orders, and perhaps use co-operative associations more and more, to overcome the cut in subsidy, and the extra costs they will have to pay.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the firms themselves will make up somewhat for the cut in the subsidy rate and help the farmers to carry on buying fertilisers by absorbing some of the cut themselves.
Then, right at the end of the Scheme—my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) mentioned this—comes the problem of basic slag. This is a very important item, particularly in the South-West of England, and I for one welcome the fact that subsidy is not being cut, or has been cut only very slightly, because slag is very important in the wetter areas, particularly, as I said, in the South-West, and also in Wales, and in the part of the country my hon. Friend represents so well I would have thought it necessary to use more and more slag. So I am grateful to the Government that they have not cut this subsidy. It is important that slag should continue to be used. It is a strange thing that where compound fertilisers will not work, slag will work, and will produce the grass so necessary for our livestock. I welcome the fact that there has been no reduction there, and I hope that farmers will take advantage of it and use slag more and more, because it certainly does produce the grass.
There is another thing I should like to mention and I hope the Minister may answer this question. I am looking at "Fertiliser Statistics, 1968". Why, in the South-West and the western areas, are we dropping so far behind in the use of fertilisers? I see that we are well down the list, and this needs an explanation. It gives cause for concern, because we ought in the South-West to be making


a higher application of fertilisers to produce the grass so that we can produce cheaper milk and fatten our cattle. I think the Minister should give us some explanation why the South-West is slipping behind in this way. I quote from "Fertiliser Statistics":
While it may be expected that present growth rates will not continue at the same high levels in the east as has been the case over the last ten years, there is clearly much leeway to be made up in the western half of the United Kingdom.
This is a serious problem. We must produce milk and beef from grass, and the only way to do this is through increased fertiliser application, which we are not getting in the South-West. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why this is so and what his officers are doing to encourage farmers to use more fertiliser, particularly in the South-West.

12.46 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I am sorry that hon. Members opposite have found fault with the admirable brevity of my hon. Friend in putting forward the Scheme; they have certainly made up for it.
The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was his usual depressing self. Some of the points which he made may have been out of order—you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Speaker. He said that we talked glibly of expansion. When he and his party were in office, I do not know whether they talked glibly then, since they had no expansion in the sense of encouraging; they forced farmers into expansion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on this Scheme the whole agricultural policy.

Mr. Mackie: I anticipated that remark. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the use of fertilisers and asked me for particulars. In the five years, 1960–64, there were cuts in fertiliser subsidy amounting to £10½ million. For the five years up to this year the cuts have amounted only to £7 million. The total subsidy for the five reviews up to 1964 was £159·5 million, and the subsidy today from—

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mackie: I will not give way. I have sat patiently for 1¼ hours listening to hon. Members. They should listen to me with the same patience. The total for the last five years is almost exactly the same, £159·7 million. There is this difference. In the five years 1960–65 the uptake of fertilisers increased by 182,000 nutrient tons a year. Between 1964 and the end of 1967 it increased by 191,000 tons a year. By the end of 1968 the forecast is an increase of 85,000 nutrient tons, and the forecast for 1969 is an increase of another 49,000 nutrient tons.
The right hon. Member for Grantham may say that that is a reduction in the increase, but hon. Members opposite who claim to have a knowledge of farming know that the variations in farming are so great that one year must not be taken alone.
In reply to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on the reduced uptake of fertilisers in the South-West, as he has told me several times, last year was one of the best years for grass in the South-West, and no one will slap on fertilisers if the weather is good.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mackie: No, I am not giving way. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) compared artificial fertilisers and organic fertilisers. I would be out of order if I were to comment on that subject, intriguing as it is.
The hon. Member for Torrington said that it was impossible to fertilise without applying lime. We have been looking at the reduction in lime use, and there is a peculiar pattern over the country. The main reason is that a tremendous amount of lime has been used during the last two decades, so that the lime content of the soil has been brought up to a much higher level than before. The reduction is because that content in many areas is now being kept up by the addition of much smaller quantities of lime.
Several hon. Members asked why nitrogen had gone down so greatly as against phosphate. Nitrogen was more highly subsidised than the other nutrients, and we rounded it off. A number of speakers were pleased that we had left slag alone.


One hon. Member suggested that this was because of pressure from the Steel Board, but it was nothing of the sort. We thought slag could be left as it was.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), among others, asked what we had done to encourage the use of fertilisers. We have dealt with the matter on the end product. We have raised the price of cereals, potatoes, wheat, barley, and have also raised the price of beef and sheep. This will encourage the use of fertiliser to grow food for animals and to increase the crops. This is what the Price Review has done, and I am certain that it will have an effect.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) went back a year ago in commenting on what I said. I will leave that alone and deal with his remarks this year. I do not know whether he has received an Answer to the Question he put down, but I am sure that that Answer will satisfy him. He, too, raised the matter of the different treatment as between nitrogen and phosphate, to which I have already replied.
A number of hon. Members emphasised that grassland is one of the best areas for the use of fertilisers. The increase in the price of stock particularly beef and sheep, will help in that respect. Frankly, I am amazed that hon. Members, who claim such tremendous knowledge of agriculture, have so little faith in their fellow farmers that they think they would cut the one thing which we all know we should not cut. Anybody who seeks thrift in his farming would not wish to cut fertilisers, and I do not think that farmers will make any such cuts.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) raised the matter of lower tonnage. The answer is that this year we have increased the tonnage. I admit that last year was a year of bad weather which had its effects on farming, but one cannot take one particular year and quote it as an example. One must take results over a reasonably lengthy period. The use of fertilisers has been increased by 6 per cent. a year in the last decade.
The hon. Member went on to say that instead of giving farmers a pat on the back, we had given them a slap in the ear. I hope that he will remember that

he and his party slapped the farmers to the tune of £10½ million. We have slapped them only to the tune of £7 million.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackie: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can only talk about fertilisers on this Order.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member for Devizes put a simile about fertilisers and said that it was a slap in the ear. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said that it was a false economy to economise on fertilisers, and I agree. But I do not think farmers will economise in that way. He also emphasised its use on grass, and again I agree with him. He added that we should put the onus on the end product, as in fact we have done.
He then asked about the cost of administration. It amounts to about £250,000. We have looked at other methods of applying the subsidy. One attractive method is to pay it to the manufacturer rather than to the farmer. But there are many other uses for fertilisers such as on sports grounds, gardens, and so on. The law is that it has to be used for agriculture. That answers the hon. Member for Gainsborough who asked why it was not used in forestry. That is not in the Act. I shall not comment on his remarks about people buying it for agriculture and then using it for forestry.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) asked about the award figure. The net figure was £34 million, but the award on prices is £37 million. If one subtracts the one from the other, one is left with £3 million, which represents the cut in the fertiliser subsidy.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) raised the question of the end price, a matter with which have already dealt.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Mackie: No. I said that I would not give way. I have listened patiently to the points made by hon. Members and I hope that they will do me the courtesy of listening to my reply.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West also referred to the results of bad


weather and emphasised what I have said about the effects of using fertilisers. We had a bad season last year and a lot of leaching occurred. We may see—indeed, I have already seen this—some yellowing of corn as a result of leaching. We should certainly put on an additional amount to replace leached-out nitrogen. Like him, I have faith in farmers and I am sure that they will put on more nitrogen.
I think that I have answered all the questions asked by hon. Members. If I said more I might find myself out of order, particularly if I replied to some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Grantham. I need only add that the farmers welcome this subsidy. The total of the subsidy has not been cut. Considering the additional use of fertilisers, we expect the £30 million figure to be exceeded. Like our predecessors in office, we have kept the figure at about £30 million. We are, therefore, keeping the subsidy figure at the rate at which we want it and are not making a cut.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

12.57 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss with this Motion the following one:
That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.

Mr. Mackie: That is convenient, Mr. Speaker, since the second proposal is the corresponding Scottish Scheme.
I imagine that hon. Members are by now familiar with the main features of these Schemes, which provide grant for ploughing grassland 12 years old or more and where the cost of operations is substantially greater than normal.
The purpose of the Scheme is to help farmers to bring into cultivation land which might otherwise remain unproductive. Hon. Members will agree that this grant provides worth-while encouragement to the effective use of agricultural resources at a time when we are seeking to improve productivity, besides helping to counterbalance the acreage lost yearly to non-agricultural development.
The provisions of the Scheme are, in the main, as for previous years. There is only one change to which I need draw the attention of the House, and this follows the Transfer of Functions (Wales) Order, 1969, which included the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act, 1952, among those Acts whose administration the Secretary of State would in future share with the Minister. Thus, in the 1969 Order—but not, of course, in the Scottish Scheme—the administration of the Scheme is in the hands of "the appropriate Minister" who, in paragraph (2), is defined as
… the Minister in relation to land in England or Northern Ireland and the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly in relation to land in Wales.
The two Schemes which we are discussing will cover about 45,000 acres which are expected to be ploughed during the 1969–70 financial year, giving rise to expenditure estimated at £542,000, of which £450,000 is for England and Wales, £20,000 for Northern Ireland and £72,000 for Scotland.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: When moving the approval of a similar Instrument about two years ago the hon. Gentleman said that some 600,000 acres had been grant-aided since 1952, of which about 108,000 had been in Scotland, or about 18 per cent. of the total, giving an average of about 40,000 acres a year.
It seems extraordinary that, whereas Scotland got 23 per cent. of what used to be called the Part I ploughing subsidy, it now receives only 18 per cent., despite the difficult nature of the contour of the ground up there which merits this grant. It seems anomalous that this grant should apparently be of smaller benefit in that area than was the previous one.
There seems to be considerable fluctuation each year in the acreage ploughed under the Scheme. For instance, in 1959–60 the figure was 72,000 acres; in 1963–64


it dropped to 42,000 acres; in 1965–66 it rose to 54,000 acres; and we are told that this year it is back to 45,000 acres.
The Under-Secretary, who I presume is to reply, last year said that he thought that fluctuation was inevitable. I wonder whether he is right in saying that. With 50,000 acres in the United Kingdom going out of cultivation and production each year for urban development, I should think that it is desirable that reclamation or the ploughing of difficult land and bringing it into cultivation ought to rise with reasonable consistency, if possible. I do not suggest on the level of the extravagant claims that might be made for bringing land into production in Scotland by, let us say, the Scottish Nationalist Party; but I feel that we should be getting a reasonably consistent rise all the time, provided the Scheme is known well enough to the farming community. Of this I am by no means convinced. I believe that a lot of farmers are under the impression that there is no ploughing grant available at all.
If the Scheme is well known, I find it a little puzzling that more advantage is not taken of it. I have my suspicions why advantage is not being taken of it. Last year the Minister said that he had found that in 1968 the cost to a farmer, after offsetting the grant, was £8 an acre. This must mean that he makes the total cost of ploughing to be £20 an acre, because the subsidy is £12. The Minister made it clear that he was using an average figure, but I am not sure that an average figure is meaningful in any degree when we are dealing with such an enormous variety of circumstances.
The Minister gave us an interesting breakdown. He said that 32 per cent. of the grant was used on hill land, 8 per cent. on what he described as land bordering the hill, and 60 per cent. on other land. I found that an extremely interesting breakdown, but obviously the 60 per cent. on other land dominates the average figure of £20 an acre. It must be very much higher in the hills and the uplands, because of higher transport costs in getting the tackle to and from such areas and because of the steepness of the ground. I still doubt whether £12 an acre is an adequate grant for breaking this ground if the Government are anxious to have it broken up and reclaimed.
I do not want to go over it again, but we discussed whether, if £10 was necessary in 1952, £12 was adequate today, and it was at that point that the hon. Gentleman tried to convince us that costs had risen by only 20 per cent. in the last 17 years. I think that in fact the hon. Gentleman used the figure of 24 per cent. last year. I cannot believe that if £12 was considered the right figure 17 years ago £12 is anything like adequate today. If the Government's policy generally is as good as right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been making out, why is it that farmers are not taking advantage of this inducement which, according to the hon. Gentleman's calculation, is equivalent to 60 per cent. of the total cost of the operation? I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's figure is correct.
Having said that, perhaps I might ask the hon. Gentleman to answer two questions which were not answered in the last two debates. The point made two years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) is still valid. Can one get a ploughing grant of £12 an acre after getting a grant for clearing scrub off the ground? I have noted paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Scheme, but neither of those seems to apply to this matter, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
The other question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in a debate which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary answered in 1966. It takes a long time to get replies to questions. The hon. Gentleman's comment then rather puzzled me, because he said:
I know that the whole question of chemical treatment of grassland for reseeding—or, for that matter, cropping—is now on the cards. We have not included it yet, but, naturally, we are looking into every method of reseeding. If we feel that it is necessary … it might come under the grant in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 176.]
I cannot for the life of me see how a grant of reseeding could come under this Scheme if it is merely being done by chemical treatment of grassland. If this is the sort of thing that is possible, then I return to the point that farmers are entirely ignorant of the possibilities here, and I urge the Government to make this grant and subsidy very much better known than they are.

1.9 a.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I feel that this subsidy is encouraging something which, certainly in my district, should be discouraged. We have had a great deal too much ploughing. I am not dealing particularly with what the Minister referred to as land which would be otherwise unproductive. There may be a case for contributing to the cost of bringing scrubland into production.
I am somewhat doubtful about this, because I feel that if we get the price right and use the support by applying it to the price instead of to the process we shall get the right economic result. It is not always good sense to use capital to bring scrubland into production instead of using it to get better production out of the rest of one's land. But so far as this is an encouragement to destroy the old pastures instead of using them properly, I can only say that I think it is complete madness These old pastures which have established themselves, have provided a balanced sward and which, if properly looked after, must be the foundation of our beef herd, have been destroyed to an extraordinary degree. It will be 12 years before we get the kind of pasture which can support the weight of the breeding cattle. At present we are reducing our dairy herd and not only are we reducing the milk, but, by increasing the quality of the herd, we are reducing its numbers and its calves.
Therefore, the beef policy, which it is the Government's intention to encourage, must depend upon a considerable number of cows which are kept to produce calves rather than to produce milk. They must be pastured in considerable measure. If they are pastured on these new leys they will simply destroy them and turn them to muck. At this point we are encouraging the destruction of the old pastures on which we ought to be putting those cattle.
Again we are encouraging a process, which is certainly happening in my district, of buying land at extravagant prices in order to destroy it. It is bought to plough and plough and plough, and to have great doses of artificial manure applied, without looking after the water, the hedges and the drainage. After about seven years that land is destroyed and then it is passed on to somebody else. This is the process to which the Ministry

should apply its mind, to see how it can be stopped, instead of providing a subsidy to encourage it.
The time has come to think again about these ploughing subsidies, and put them into reverse. Let the Ministry do something for the old pasture and encourage people to produce the old pasture instead of paying them to destroy it.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: When the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was talking about the old pastures in his part of the world, I hoped that he would go on to say something of the value of many of the weeds in those old pastures. We still do not know what minerals they bring up from the bottom. Nothing is more pathetic than to see a herd of cattle eating the hedges and the roadside verges in order to draw nourishment which is brought up by the weeds in the old pastures and of which they are deprived on many of the new lands.
This practice is utilised now only to the tune of about £500,000 a year. The reason that it is not used more frequently is not that people do not know about it. But it is uneconomic as a whole to plough up many of these areas which the Government are encouraging people to plough up. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary whether he has cleared up the question of the giving of a grant by one Government Department to destroy what another Government Department wants to maintain. Have we settled the question of ploughing up a site of special scientific interest? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recall that we had a case near one of his farms in my constituency, where everyone agreed that a particular piece of land should not be ploughed up. It was valuable to the local naturalists, yet the Ministry had no power to refuse to give the grant of £12 an acre to break up what everyone else wanted to keep.
We are very fortunate to have my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) with us. I am one of those who are very sorry to see the £12 an acre grant being used to destroy large areas of Exmoor. Ninety-nine per cent. of the people who go there do not want to see enthusiastic but not very good marginal farming.


They do not want to see the Lorna Doone country all ploughed up and fenced in with wire fences. They want to see the normal, rounded, heathery skylines of Exmoor. Yet tonight we are voting £12 an acre to farmers to destroy and change the character of land where everyone else wants to go to enjoy the existing amenities.
What is so depressing about the subsidy is that if we accept that it is necessary to have the £12 an acre because it is not really economic to plough the land in the first place, because it is unfertile, bad land, the Scheme is not a comprehensive one. In my hon. Friend's constituency we see that many areas that have been ploughed up, the farmers having drawn £12 an acre from the Government, now grow the best crop of rushes to be found anyhere in the West Country. Nobody has yet thought out the proper way of maintaining areas once they have been brought back into cultivation. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is the owner of some of the most fertile looking patches of rushes I have seen anywhere in the United Kingdom. This entirely arises from his Department's rushing in, using the grant and not thinking out how it will maintain the pastures, or even whether it is economic to maintain them once the first flush of the receipt of £12 an acre has gone.
Therefore, I am very reluctant to see us continue with the Scheme. If we are to do so, it should be properly thought out, working over a period of years. The £12 an acre to bust up the land should be linked with a series of subsidies to maintain the land in fertility. It is undesirable that we should destroy land that should be used mainly for amenity and that is uneconomic for farming, and I hope that we shall gradually see the grant phased out.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I join the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in wondering whether a ploughing up grant of this nature is doing more harm than good. I am convinced from watching cattle feeding that they hang on to many of the older pastures rather than some of the new ones. There is something we do not know about in some of the older pastures.
I am really worried when I drive through the Midlands, through land which used to be the most wonderful fattening pastures, and which I knew well. We used to have many cattle in the eastern area to finish off. Much of that land is now ploughed up to put in inferior crops of potatoes and corn, and I believe that it is not producing the same amount of food as under the old pastures. Some of this strongish land in the Midlands is not properly drained and finished off, and it is growing inferior crops, particularly this year.
When one goes through there one has the horrifying sight of many acres of potatoes left in the ground because land unsuitable for the production of arable crops was ploughed up, probably using the subsidy in many cases. Very old grasslands were ploughed up, and they are growing crops that are not so much use as producing good fat cattle off the old pastures.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I disagree with a lot of what has been said tonight. I welcome this Scheme, and I believe the time will come when we need to plough every single acre of our land to help feed our nation and to carry out the import substitution programme which we hope will be under way.
I welcome the Scheme, and I can state from practical experience that a lot of what has been said by some of my hon. Friends, and by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), is simply not true. On my own farm I brought into cultivation with the help of this grant—and I could not have done it otherwise—land which had been unsuitable and very difficult to work. It is now fully restored and is producing a large amount of milk. Certainly if one is a good farmer there is no question of the land going back once, with the help of this grant, one has ploughed up the ground, sowing grass seed, and has maintained it as one should do.
I was always taught that if one put one's penny into the chocolate machine one got one's chocolate out, and only if one continues to put a penny in will one get results. If some of my hon. Friends get the grant and do not continue the good work, they only get what they deserve. I think this is a wrong attitude. The time will come when every


acre will need to be ploughed for the greater production required. Waste ground, old orchards and old fields—all these can be ploughed up with this grant and, sown with a grass crop, can produce the acres of grazing we need. When the hon and learned Member for Northampton talks of old pastures only producing milk, that is just not true. This is true with fattening cattle as well.

Mr. Paget: I did not say one did not produce milk. What I said was that when one is producing beef cattle one has to have them out more, and unless one has a solid sward, which takes a considerable number of years, they will destroy them.

Mr. Mills: This may be true of certain fields, but generally speaking one can produce leys to fatten cattle just as well as it can be done with permanent pasture.
The expenditure required to do the job is ever-increasing these days, with the high cost of tractors and so on, and the £12 an acre does not go very far to bring this land into production. I am very glad that this Scheme once again says that
For the purpose of this scheme grass shall be regarded as a crop.
It is only as we start to plough back, sow the proper seed and treat grass as a real crop, that we shall get the production which the country needs.
I trust that rotavating will continue to be covered by the subsidy. As the costs of ploughing and working down rise, with rotavating one can do this a little more cheaply and quickly and produce just as good a job.
Lastly, I notice that before one can get this £12 an acre subsidy the land ploughed up must be not less than one acre. Could the Minister tell me whether a multiple of lots of small patches can make up the full acre which then qualifies for grant? This is important, because on a farm there may be perhaps four quarter acres of small rough patches which need to be brought into cultivation to make the field complete and to do away with weeds or anything not in keeping with the rest of the field. Can they be added up so that one may get the full grant for a complete acre? Since

we are pressing for every acre to be fully used, this may be of help.
I welcome the Scheme. What some of my hon. Friends have said is wrong when we consider what we are trying to do, namely, to produce more food.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am delighted to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has said. With his immense experience of agriculture, he has very effectively put to flight the extraordinary arguments advanced by certain hon. Members—some, I regret to say, on this side of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke of the advantages of old pastures and his desire to perpetuate fox-holing tussock pastures. He would not have passed an examination in grassland management at any reputable institute of agricultural education if he had tried to give to his examiners the sort of stuff which he gave just now. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said much the same thing. I can only repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington said, that the overwhelming evidence of agricultural research shows that, in the main, a well seeded new pasture, a new ley, is superior in production than most of the old pastures. I hope that the Minister will underline what I have said. I am sure that this is the advice he is given by his advisory officers. No doubt the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), who has immense experience in agriculture, will agree.
Last year, the Under-Secretary of State said that the estimates for 1968–69 for this subsidy were £696,000. In this year's White Paper, the estimate for last year's expenditure is £1·2 million. This is a discrepancy of over £500,000—about 40 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's estimates are nearly as far out of true as the Chancellor of the Exechequer's. I hope that we shall be given the reason for such a wide discrepancy. The White Paper says, and we have been told tonight, that the ploughing grant will cost about £500,000. Why has there been such a drop? It may be partly due to the £150,000 estimated for use as added incentives for the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
I repeat what has been said about areas of less than one acre. The M6 is being constructed from the north to the south of Westmorland. Many fields will be cut in half by the motorway. Small patches will be left, many of which will have been badly poached and cut up. They will be less than one acre. In many instances, large stones will have spilled over from the motorway. I should have thought that farmers so affected would qualify for the grant. It would be a pity if they could not get it because there was less than an acre of a field left after the motorway had gone through.
My hon. Friend mentioned rotavators. There is a new technique for grassland reseeding which involves spraying with chemicals which kill off all the herbage—I shall not advertise it by mentioning it—to reseed the sward by rotavating which gives a fine tilth in rows and drops the grass seed in. I have myself successfully used this technique and it would be helpful if it could be assisted by the subsidy.
I have asked a number of questions which I believe to be important and I hope that the Under-Secretary will attempt to answer them.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: This is a grant which has enormously increased production in many parts of the country. There is no longer such a large amount of land to be reclaimed and, happily, there has not been the same demand for the grant over the past few years. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that if £10 were sufficient for the grant in 1952, £12 in 1969 must be very inadequate and there is a strong case for increasing it.
However, I also agree with what the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said about the lack of proper husbandry after land has been ploughed. Such a lack gives a bad impression to the man who motors through the country and sees fields full of rushes. There should be some way of dealing with those who are negligent and who do not farm their land properly after it has been reclaimed. The land should be treated from year to year and slag is particularly useful to establish grass.
Dropping the grant entirely would be a big mistake and I hope that the Ministry will consider increasing the amount per acre, because there is still land to be reclaimed.
It is important to have some old grass for stock. When stock is put on to new grass, after a few days it will be found to be pushing through wire fences to get at older grass. But if the land is ploughed and farmed properly, within a few years good older grass will be available for the stock.
I support these proposals and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider increasing the amount per acre.

1.39 a.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: As my hon. Friends who are now pulling my leg well know, I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I was waiting for something else, one might almost say 'Waiting for Godot". I hope that "Godot" may shortly arrive.
I was provoked into speaking by the splendid contribution of my hon. Friend and contemporary the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) who was good enough to refer to my constituency and particularly to Exmoor. Furthermore, it bitterly distresses me to find my hon. Friend from the West Country, the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) apparently on one side of the fence and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk South-West (Mr. Hawkins) apparently on the other side, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) somewhere in the middle and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), as usual, taking a clear, interesting and distinctive line of his own. That should be resolved.
To go back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said about Exmoor, he was, in his way, absolutely right. I hope he will do me the automatic courtesy of conceding that I, too, know that part of the world, for three-quarters of Exmoor is in my constituency. I have watched the ploughing up of parts of Exmoor over the years and I know the controversy which now surrounds the potential ploughing up of other parts of Exmoor.
There can be no question but that the system of ploughing grants has immensely benefited many conscientious farmers. They have brought land into cultivation which has meant much to them individually. It was the only way they knew to expand. They brought benefits to themselves, to their neighbourhood, and not least to the whole national economy, by accepting these grants and bringing additional land into cultivation. One only has to visit the Ministry's own experimental farm at Tarr Steps to see what is possible, what has been done, and well done. Whether one is talking of places further west, or in the north, or in parts of Norfolk or Scotland, or any other part of the country, there is no doubt that these grants have been useful and beneficial, individually and collectively.
So far, so good. What about the future? We have heard during this debate that only a small amount of money is expected to be used for these grants in future and I suppose they will eventually go altogether. Is that right? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mr. Stodart) pointed out, one wonders whether sufficient farmers know their rights. We have also heard that it is possible to contemplate bringing very small amounts of land into cultivation.
The truth lies half way between the two extreme views put to the House. These grants have in the past been beneficial and good, but there must be a question mark about them in the future. The Ministry, instead of granting them as of right on demand, should in future be more selective. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has whispered to me and would agree at once if I said we do not want to plough up Dunkery Beacon in future. Such a system would be absurd. The point is not automatically to continue this system next year, nor automatically to bring it to a stop, but rather that there should be more selection. Let it be hoped, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty suggested, that there is no real division about this. The whole method of grant should be reviewed, and I hope that with that the Under-Secretary will agree.

1.39 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): One usually points out in winding up debates such as this that one is happy that all hon. Members agree. I was not even applauded for my brevity in my previous speech and there has been a good deal of challenge on this one. I am surprised at some of the points raised. One argument was simply a request for good husbandry, that one should not have bad husbandry and should not plough where one should not plough. I would agree with that.
I was rather surprised when some hon. Members said that we should be more selective in applying grants when other hon. Members have said that we should not be as selective. The arguments do not "gel". There are certain situations when it would be wrong to use the grants, such as ploughing up of pasture, and they are not given then.
I was accused of being a landlord and of allowing rushes to develop, and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) asked me to what extent land which had received grants subsequently deteriorated. There has been very little of this. Most of the land which has received the grant is now in good health. There were some historic reasons for the rush-covered areas in the Highlands and elsewhere in Scotland.
I can confirm that the cost of rotavating will be allowed. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) asked whether a number of small pieces of land, such as areas split by road development, could be added together to produce an eligible acreage. The answer is that this can be done. It is not necessarily clear from the Scheme, but my advice is that it can be done, and there is good reason why it should be allowed. I was glad to hear the question of amenity raised. With a grant such as this, I do not think that we are envisaging tractors racing at top speed around potential beauty spots in Lorna Doone country or anywhere else. We have means of dealing with this under the Countryside Act. The purpose of the Scheme is to improve the productivity of the land, and the amenity considerations are covered by specialist legislation within the Countryside Act, particularly the protection of


areas of special scenic and scientific interest.
I was also asked about the difference between the £1·2 million and £600,000. The inclusion of £650,000 for the £10 emergency payment scheme for England and Wales is within the figure of £1·2 million. The grant under this Scheme was not a relevant grant for Annual Review purposes and strictly speaking should have appeared as a separate entry.
Some hon. Members asked whether a farmer could get the grant after scrub clearance. As long as the cost of operations after that process remains high enough to qualify, it will be eligible for the grant. I am not sure whether we have reached the real reasons for the variation in acreage from year to year. There are several reasons. There has been a proposal, not serious I think, by another political party, to bring millions of acres of bogland into increased cultivation at no increased cost. Quite apart from that, there has obviously been a decreasing amount of potentially arable land all the time. The pressures, therefore, work both ways. Development pressures in an area can create fluctuations because of this.
A second factor, quite simply, is the weather. A person who desires to take time off to do this kind of fresh work because of a hold-up on other work may not get round to doing it because of the weather. This may not be seen in obvious ways, but it can happen that from year to year there is a greater expectation and application and it may continue to the following year because weather has prevented the work being carried out in the first year—in other words, people doing their basic job instead of future development.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked why Scotland was receiving less proportionately of the grant. There is probably no one simple answer, but one answer would, presumably, be the Hill Land Improvement Scheme, which could be more attractive to a number of farmers in the more difficult areas in Scotland.
A general point was raised about the rate of grant and whether, after the

passage of time, £12 is sufficient. There have been a lot of improvements in efficiency and in cost, and costs are based on contractors' charges. Although in recent years the cost has, perhaps, risen more than one might have hoped, because of increased efficiency the cost has not risen as much as one might have expected.
More important is that during the 1967 Scheme, the latest for which I have full figures, 76 per cent. of the approved acreage in the United Kingdom attracted grant in excess of half of the cost. In other words, three-quarters received half or more of the cost of operation. This is well above the rate for most other agricultural improvement schemes. Therefore, it works both ways. If three-quarters received over half, the costs cannot have risen so abnormally as to make the £12 grant a disincentive in that way.
It also raises another problem. If one were to take account of the increased costs and raise the £12 to meet them, one would find that the lower level were being excluded. A necessary corollary would be the raising of the level of expenditure which would be necessary to qualify for the abnormal expenditure aspect, and I do not think we would want to encourage this.
I have covered most of the specific points. Despite the theoretical arguments against the Scheme—I do not say that in pejorative terms, because one thing which has pleased me in both debates is that theoretical propositions have been raised—it is performing a very useful function both in Scotland and indeed in the United Kingdom as a whole, and I think that most hon. Members would like to see the grants continued again this year.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.

Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1969 [draft laid before the House 29th April), approved.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL MOD (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for contributions by local authorities in Scotland towards the expenses of the National Mod, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable by way of rate support grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Orders of the Day — A38 ROAD, WELLINGTON (PARKING RESTRICTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

1.50 a.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: As one might say, though I appreciate that one cannot speak too long in a foreign language, enfin, M. Godot, est arrivé. The only snag is that I cannot speak of the fertiliser subsidy or ploughing grant in French because I do not know the French for either of those terms.
I suppose that one can very often feel impatient indeed with the procedures of this House, until at last one reaches the moment when one can deploy the cause one has very much at heart.
I say at once that I am not here to make any criticism of the Minister or those responsible for the present parking restrictions in the town of Wellington in Somerset in my constituency; nor of the Ministry, nor of the county surveyor, for whom in particular I have a very high regard; nor of the local police; nor of the D.R.E.; all of whom have been concerned to a greater or lesser degree in this matter. Nor, in particular, am I here to make any criticism of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I am extremely grateful for waiting until this late hour, nearly 2 o'clock in the morning, and who, I fancy, with his experience of the North-East, will probably have some sympathy with what I have to say this evening. I know he understands that part of the world, and I hope he will allow me to say that I know my own. I shall ask for his

sympathy and help in ways I shall shortly particularise.
The town of Wellington, the second largest in my constituency, with a population of about 8,000, is not the greatest town in the South-West, but from my point of view, and from the point of view of those who live there, it also is not the least important. It is, as I dare say others beside myself here know, the town from which the great Duke of Wellington took his name after Waterloo. We erected a memorial column to him on Blackdown Hills, in the beneficent shadow of which this small pleasant town has its being, and my own house stands. Therefore, I can surely claim familiarity with Wellington. I drive through the town, I suppose, about five times every weekend during the times when the House of Commons is sitting, and more often when it is not, and when, obviously, one can be at home. My wife and my family shop there. It is the centre of a wide area, including some of the most beautiful country in England. I speak, therefore, of what I know.
That section of the Exeter to Leeds trunk road, the A.38, which passes through Wellington, is now subject to a very severe parking order, of which the Minister, in his own words written in 1968, said that it would be bound to "cause some inconvenience". With no disrespect to him that, I suppose, was the understatement of that year. Its introduction provoked shock, dismay, and profound concern to the traders and the public alike. These feelings were inevitable, in my opinion.
The history of the matter, put shortly, is this. There have previously been parking restrictions in Wellington, as, indeed, there are bound to be. That is reasonable. The only question is what the scope of these restrictions should be.
When it was known that these restrictions were impending I was, as the hon. Gentleman will know, in some correspondence with the Minister, and I suggested to him that he might perhaps be good enough to receive me as the local M.P. with a deputation. He wrote to me on 11th September and told me that there would be a public inquiry, for he recognised that it was proper to look into the matter with some care. I think, with


respect to him, he made a mistake in suggesting, in the circumstances, that I need not go to see him and take a deputation. I think that, similarly, I made a mistake in not pressing the matter. I thought, as he thought, that the inquiry would indeed settle the matter, and settle it reasonably.
The inquiry took place on 31st October-1st November last year, and the draft Order was made almost immediately thereafter. As a matter of fact, there was deep local resentment at the making of the order and the way it was done, though I acquit the Minister of any intentional discourtesy. The facts, however, should be recorded, and they are not unimportant in the context of this debate. He made his decision on 16th December, and he instructed as his agent Somerset County Council on the 20th. Wellington Urban District Council did not hear, however, from the Minister—no doubt, due to Christmas delays in the post, and so on—until 22nd December. They considered the matter on the 23rd and sent their views to the Minister on the 24th. They heard nothing more than a postcard which was received on 3rd January. The chamber of trade, which had been prominent in giving evidence at the inquiry, was not able even to get a copy of the report of the inquiry until 2nd January.
The first intimation I had of the matter, although the Minister wrote to me on 16th December, was when I saw lines actually being painted on the roads in Wellington. I repeat that I acquit the Minister of intentional discourtesy, but there was a feeling in Wellington among those people who were most concerned, among official bodies and the public that the inquiry was entirely irrelevant. I do not say that that was the fact; it was the feeling.
Having said that, I am glad to have the opportunity to say something particularly polite about one unit of the Ministry. There is now a Road Construction Unit for the whole of the South-West based in Taunton, and I want to say how much I have admired the way in which the director and the local county surveyor have been going about their business and holding public meetings to explain what is happening about the new M5 motorway, to which I will refer in a moment. I do not believe that one

should say behind people's backs the nice things one rarely gets the opportunity to say to their faces, and I am glad in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to pay that tribute to his officials.
To resume my main theme, if it were felt that the result of the inquiry was reasonable, that all the evidence given was accurate, or that what was proposed was on the whole fair, I should not be raising this subject tonight, but that is not so. For instance, to take the question of accuracy during the proceedings, I will give one example of what I believe to be a substantial inaccuracy. The Minister's evidence at the inquiry stated that the car parks in Wellington would be adequate to take all the vehicles that would be forced off the streets if the order went through. That is demonstrably not so.
To take the question of omissions, again I give a single example. There was almost scant reference during the hearing to the potential demolition of the town hall, which is urgently necessary to improve the traffic flow, as I believe Mr. Murray Price on the council has been pointing out at a meeting held tonight.
Thirdly, it is felt that the position in Wellington is unfair in its result, and that the present parking restrictions are unprecedented in their severity. They are far more severe than in Taunton, and much more severe than in Cullompton, to take the two nearest towns, one to the east and one to the west of Wellington. I have looked at every town on the A38 and they are more severe than in any other town along the whole length of the A38. They are more severe than anything locally and more severe than anything generally.
I could catalogue various matters of this kind, but I do not think it would be sensible to do so.
The first point I would put to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether he would be good enough, as the Minister has indicated to me that he might, to consider a memorandum on all these points from me, and to receive a deputation on these matters, as I originally suggested, not because I, the people of Wellington, their elected representatives or the traders wish to propose sweeping changes in the order—restrictions on parking there must be—but because we think that we


could put forward one or two ideas which would not hinder the main flow of traffic through Wellington but which would be a great improvement from the point of view of traders and those living and working in the town. In other words, we are seeking to be both practical and helpful.
I can introduce my second point in this way. There are two projects to bypass the town of Wellington. There is a comparison with the town of Honiton, a town which I know very well and with which my family has been connected for generations. The hazards and dangers do not come from the local traffic, but from the through traffic, although from the point of view of commerce and the tourist trade we welcome it in the West Country.
The most important project is the M5, which is due to be built in the mid '70's. One cannot be more precise than that. It must depend on the one hand on the physical progress further north, and on the other on the alacrity with which we get through the statutory procedures for the project.
There are mixed feelings about the M5. Some will regret the splitting up of land holdings; others will regret the noise. I have some sympathy with those views for I live nearby, and I do not live in Somerset in order to live in a noisy area on top of a motorway. I have sympathy with those views, but what is for the general good will obviously have everybody's support.
Could not something be done to expedite the building of the motorway? It is well known in the House that I have pressed for this motorway for many years, and I understand that the strategy for the M5 is that it is thought to be important to proceed stage by stage, in logical sequence. However, there are exceptions to the rule. Cullompton has been bypassed before Bridgwater, Highbridge or Taunton or Wellington. I am not sure—and this is a point for the Parliamentary Secretary to consider—that it is not more important to bypass towns than to build great stretches of motorway across open country.
Third, when the motorway is built—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to spell out what the Minister

has already said to me in the past—could the parking regulations, which are so very severe, be rescinded, or at any rate reviewed with a view to their being substantially mitigated?
Fourthly, there have been improvements in the South-West in terms of roads. I remember, as a Minister at the Board of Trade as deputy to the present Leader of the Opposition, being associated with some of the improvements. We managed to bring about the Beam Bridge scheme, the Taunton inner relief road, and similar schemes. The West Country depends on good communications. It is ironical to hear distinguished committees, such as the Hunt Committee, still arguing for these things. One can argue that in absolute terms we are not doing too badly. In relative terms I am not so sure.
There is now a proposal for a relief road on the south side of Wellington, quite separate from the motorway. It is to be a 20 ft. wide road, some 2¾ miles long, on the back lanes, as we call them. It is a widening of the country lanes between Chelston and Perry Elm. The Minister will know the places, though I do not suppose they will mean very much to anybody else. The cost is to be £200,000, of which the Government will, I understand, contribute about £180,000, on condition that the road is opened by the summer of 1970.
The inhabitants of Wellington, the town council, the chamber of trade and others are 100 per cent. in favour of this excellent proposal by the Ministry of Transport, which has been backed by the Road Haulage Association, the Western National Bus Company, coach operators and others.
Those who argue against it say that 10 or 20 years ago it would have been a good scheme, but now, with the building of the motorway, it is unnecessary and a waste of money. Some say that it is designed to facilitate transport to and from the motorway. There is a simple answer to these critics. It is that this improved road must benefit the town of Wellington and the locality, particularly in the long term; and I warmly support this proposal.
However, included among those who argue against the scheme are people who live in Wellington—many of them my friends—and particularly farmers. To name a few; Mr. Webber of Blackboy,


Mr. Brooks of Middle Elm, and Mr. Lindley, of Norman's. I mention these farmers because across this road twice a day will go herds totalling 150 to 200 cows, if not more. Fifthly, therefore, I urge the Minister to consider this proposal again. While I do not expect an answer tonight, will he consider the problem of cattle "creeps" on to this road and other problems that will arise locally?
My immediate neighbour, Mr. Sparks, of Perry Elm, has already had a three-lane highway built across his farm. Now his property will be cut into five parts. The Minister must appreciate the enormous problems that are involved in running a farm when faced with encroaching railways and main roads.
There has been a curious happening in this area. The county council has referred this proposal back to its works committee. Thus, sixthly, if the road about which I am speaking is slightly delayed, I hope that the funds will still be made available. I appreciate that I am asking for a lot in this regard, but I believe that money spent in this way would be sensible.
While I appreciate the difficulties that he faces and the enormous demands that are made on the limited resources available, I hope that the Minister will make these funds available, even if the project is slightly delayed. There was a meeting of the Wellington Urban District Council tonight and the council has asked for a meeting with the county council to press it to give its approval rapidly.
My seventh point is a reiteration of my earlier comments. If this road goes through, as I hope it will, I hope that it will be possible at that time for the parking regulations to be further examined and, if possible, modified.

2.8 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for putting his case so cogently. I thank him for the kind references he made to members of the staff of my Ministry.
Three separate, but connecting, issues have been raised and I will deal with them in turn. The first is the question of waiting restrictions on the A.38 trunk road through Wellington. I am glad

of this opportunity to explain fully how the current order came to be made.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, considerable concern had been expressed about the congestion on this length of road and the consequent delays to through traffic using it. Under orders made in 1948 and 1958, parts of the road were subject to waiting restrictions between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and there were also two short lengths in the centre of the High Street where limited waiting was permitted for 20 minutes in any hour.
In February, 1968, the Ministry's divisional road engineer, after prolonged consultations with the county surveyor, the police and the Wellington Urban District Council, put forward proposals for revised waiting restrictions. These restricted parking along the whole length of the trunk road through the main part of the town in order to facilitate the flow of traffic. At the same time the opportunity was taken to reduce the hours of restriction to the more standard time of 8.30 a.m. to 6 p.m., and a small amount of limited waiting was allowed where the width of the road permitted cars to be left without hampering the flow of traffic.
The proposals were advertised in the usual way on 5th June, 1968, and objections were subsequently received from the Wellington Urban District Council, the Wellington and District Chamber of Trade and Commerce and two private individuals. A public inquiry was held at the end of October and after hearing the evidence and inspecting the site the inspector recommended that the order should be made, with one minor modification. This recommendation was accepted, and the order was made on 8th January, 1969, and became effective the next day.
The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his disagreement with the inspector's recommendations, and has offered to submit a memorandum expressing the local views on these restrictions. I shall be pleased to study this memorandum and to review the present restrictions in the light of this. I must, however, point out that in deciding on the merits and extent of the restrictions in Wellington, I must have regard not only to the local views but to the needs of through traffic using this road.
Perhaps I might quote the leading article from the Western Daily Press of 8th May:
Hell is in the centre of Wellington, whose main street is both a shopping centre and a fume-polluted start-stop highway to Devon and Cornwall.
That is a fairly apt description, with which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, and something which has to be taken into consideration.
Perhaps I may now pass on to the question of the extension of the M5 to bypass Wellington. A further 50-mile section of the motorway, from Edithmead in Somerset to Exeter, was included in the second instalment of our trunk road preparation pool announced last year.
This has enabled detailed preparation to be initiated. The stage has been reached where possible routes are being investigated by our engineers. An aerial survey has been made, together with a preliminary soil survey and trial borings. It is the section of this motorway running roughly parallel to the A38 south-west of Taunton to which we in the Ministry look to meet the need to bypass Wellington and to remove the main weight of through traffic from the town. If all goes smoothly, it may prove possible later this year to publish details of a proposed route for M5 between the Cullompton bypass, which is now under construction, and Huntworth. We would hope to have the M5 extension from Edithmead to Exeter open to traffic by the mid-1970s. At this early stage in the scheme's development I regret that it is not possible to be more precise about its completion date, nor can I hold out any hope of this date being significantly advanced.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of short-term measures to mitigate the present weight of traffic through Wellington until the M5 is built. A great deal of thought has been given to the possibility of improving traffic conditions in Wellington during this interim period.
A proposal to improve the crossroads in the town centre had been examined, but we think that such a scheme would have been costly and would not have provided any real solution to the traffic problems in the town. It would also

have entailed the demolition of the old town hall, which is a listed building.
It was recently agreed in principle between our divisional road engineer and officials of the Somerset County and Wellington Urban District Councils that an interim traffic management measure should be examined for the purpose of providing some relief from congestion on the A38 in Wellington, pending the opening of the M5. This scheme was referred to in the Press as a Wellington Bypass but is in fact part of the proposed traffic management scheme, for which the county council and the urban district council are the authorities chiefly concerned.
The present scheme would involve the improvement of the Chelston-Bagley Green Road to provide a 20 ft. carriageway, by widening the existing road and constructing short diversions where appropriate. My Ministry is prepared to consider meeting the cost, estimated to be £182,000, for this work as a traffic management scheme for the relief of congestion on trunk road A38, by means of a 100 per cent. grant. The scheme would also necessitate the construction of a new length of road from Bagley Green to connect with the A38 to the west of Wellington. The £18,000 estimated cost of this short length would be borne entirely by the Somerset County Council as a classified road project, and therefore not ranking for any specific grant from my right hon. Friend. The assessed economic rate of return on the overall scheme is about 42 per cent., which is a fair indication of the high value for money it would provide in the period between its intended completion in June, 1970, and the opening of the adjacent section of the M5.
However, at a meeting on 6th May the Somerset County Council decided not to approve the proposed traffic management scheme and called upon its Highways Committee to reconsider it and report its views again at the next full council meeting, which is expected at the end of July. I understand that there were objections on the grounds that the expenditure of £200,000 was not justified in view of the anticipated early construction of the motorway, that the scheme would necessitate the acquisition of agricultural land, and that to meet the volume and nature of traffic which could


be expected to use it a higher standard of road was necessary. The higher standards required to meet the wishes of the county council would substantially increase the cost of the scheme, and it might not now be possible to complete it by June, 1970, and this would naturally reduce its rate of economic return.
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the residual value of the relief road after the extension of the M5 to Exeter will be limited and there are many other schemes competing for funds. Our divisional road engineer would, however, be prepared to consider the county council's proposals further and to discuss with its officials the effects of the county council's recent decision.
I must stress that if this relief scheme is not completed by the time we expect, because of the drop in the economic

rate of return, and because of competing schemes, it might be in difficulties.

Mr. du Cann: If the county council, which had a most unrepresentative meeting with very few people present, and I think without fully understanding the facts, changes its mind, may I take it that the Ministry will approve this and also that it will consider the question of cattle creeps?

Mr. Brown: That is a matter which the D.R.E. will have to discuss with officers of the county council, but, as I have said, he will be prepared to consider the council's proposals and to discuss this matter with its officers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Two o'clock.